Division    £|S2 


,'^ 


Section 


MARY  OF  NAZARETH 


AND  HER  FAMILY 


By  S.  M.  MERRILL,  D.  D. 

BISHOP  OF  the;  METHODIST  i^PISCOPAI,  CHURCH 


!*     OCT  12  1909     * 


^/C4L  SEW# 


CV' 


CINCINNATI :  CRANSTON  &  CURTS 

NEW  YORK:  HUNT  &  EATON 

1895 


COPYRIGHT 
BY  CRANSTON  (^  CURTS, 


PREFACE. 


THE  genesis  of  this  little  book  is 
this :  While  looking  over  some 
manuscripts  of  a  book  recently  pub- 
lished, written  by  another,  my  attention 
was  arrested  by  the  statement  of  Ne- 
ander,  with  regard  to  the  question,  *'  Wlio 
was  James,  the  Lord's  brother?"  This 
venerable  historian  of  the  Church  said: 
"This  is  the  most  difficult  question  in 
the  apostolic  history,  and  can  not  be  con- 
sidered as  decided."  The  impression 
came  to  me  that  a  little  study  might 
shed  light  upon  this  open  question. 

The  doctrines  involved  are  important, 
chiefly  because  of  the  use  that  has  been 
made    of    unproved    assumptions.       In 

3 


4  PREFACE. 

looking  into  it,  the  conclusion  was  soon 
reached  that  it  is  a  question  not  to  be 
settled  by  ecclesiastical  history,  but  by 
the  Scriptures  alone.  In  this  light  it 
has  been  pursued,  and  as  ''a  Scripture 
study"  this  little  volume  is  sent  forth, 
not  so  much  as  an  exhaustive  treatise,  as 
an  inquiry  and  a  pointer  in  the  right  di- 
rection. It  is  believed  that  nothing 
essential  to  a  right  conclusion  has  been 
overlooked. 

The  temptation  was  strong  to  go  into 
the  history  of  the  question  to  ascertain 
the  opinions  of  '*  the  fathers,"  and  the 
beginnings  of  the  controversy,  as  well  as 
the  growth  and  development  of  Mari- 
olatry  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church, 
with  its  pernicious  influence ;  but  my 
preference  for  small  books,  and  belief 
that  the  final  authority  must  eventually 
prevail,  determined  me  to  adhere  to  the 
purpose  to  make  it  a  '' Scripture  study.'' 


PREFACE. 


The  incidental  matter  of  harmony  be- 
tween the  evangelists  is  not  the  least  im- 
portant part  of  this  investigation.  The 
interpretation  of  Scripture  by  Scripture 
must  not  become  a  lost  art.  It  is  an  ex- 
ercise which  always  returns  full  compen- 
sation for  the  time  and  effort  expended. 
Whatever  was  critical  in  this  study, 
requiring  a  look  into  the  original,  or  a 
little  tracing  in  etymology,  has  been 
given  in  result,  without  the  processes  of 
reasoning  or  the  authorities  relied  upon. 
In  the  matter  of  names  and  words,  the 
authorities  are  divided,  so  that  the  scope 
and  connection  of  disputed  terms  is, 
after  all,  the  only  safe  and  final  resort. 
If  the  conclusions  here  presented  are 
sound,  the  reader  will  find,  not  only  one, 
but  several  very  difficult  questions  in 
apostolic  history  illuminated,  if  not  set- 
tled. The  relations  of  the  Marys  and 
the  Jameses  of  the  New  Testament,  and 


6  PREFACE. 

the  questions  with  regard  to  the  ''breth- 
ren" of  our  Lord,  must  be -questions  of 
interest  to  all  lovers  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures. 

S.  M.  M. 
Chicago,  February,  1895. 


CONTENTS. 


Page. 

CHAPTER  I. 

The  Subject  Stated, ii 


CHAPTER  II. 
The  Birth  of  Jesus, 26 

CHAPTER  III. 
His  Infancy— The  Star  and  the  Magi,  .   .    48 

CHAPTER  IV. 
Mary,  and  "  The  Other  Mary," 71 

CHAPTER  V. 
His  Brethren — Conjectures, 113 

CHAPTER  VI. 
His  Brethren  Not  Disciples, 144 

CHAPTER  VII. 
His  Brethren  Converted, 164 

CHAPTER  VIII. 
"  The  Lord's  Brother," 177 


PROPOSITION. 


mary  of  Xla^avzili,  tl^e  oirgin  motljer  of  our 
Sarior  3^-ws  dl^rtst,  n?as  tfje  espouscb  tutfc 
of  3oscpI?  tlje  (Carpenter,  tptjo,  unber  biuine  t)trec= 
tion,  took  l]er  unbcr  I^is  protecting  care  till  after  st|e 
Ijab  brougtjt  fortt^  Ijer  ftrst=born  son.  SI]e  lljen,  as 
l^is  Iatt)ful  tptfe,  Itoeb  ipitl^  I^im  in  tlje  Ijoly  estate 
of  matrimony,  anb  bore  unto  l|im  boti?  sons  anb 
baugl^ters,  w^id}  sons  anb  baugl^ters  were  knomn  to 
Ijer  netgl^bors  anb  frienbs,  anb  ©ere  acknoirlebgeb 
bg  I^erself  anb  t^usbanb  as  tl^eir  on?n,  lioing  in  tl^eir 
t|ouse,  anb  subject  to  tl^cir  voili.  Ct^e  names  of  tl^e 
sons  mere  '^ames,  3oses,  Simon,  anb  Z^^^^r  ^^^ 
ttje  names  of  ttje  baugb^ters  are  unknomn.  Ct|ese 
sons  mere  knomn  as  tl]e  Sretl^ren  of  3^sus,  being 
the  sons  of  I]is  motl^er ;  but  ttjey  bib  not  become  tjis 
bisciples  till  after  t^is  crucifirion,  beai1:i,  anb  resur= 
rcction.  dl^ey  bib,  I^omccer,  become  ibentifieb  mitl^ 
tjis  follomers  before  tl^e  bai^  of  pentecost,  anb  one 
of  ttjem  subsequently  became  an  apostle,  Unomn  as 
"  3ames  tl^e  £orb's  brotl^er." 

9 


MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 


fflFrapftr  I. 

THE  SUBJECT  STATED. 

tHE  first  appearance  of  the  name  of 
Mary  of  Nazareth  in  Gospel  his- 
tory is  in  connection  with  her  espousal 
to  Joseph.  It  was  undoubtedly  by  gra- 
cious design  that  the  knowledge  of  her 
childhood  and  maiden  life  was  with- 
holden  from  the  Church.  In  the  early 
centuries  there  was  manifested  a  disposi- 
tion to  magnify  whatever  was  known  of 
her  into  the  supernatural,  making  it  the 
occasion  of  undue  veneration  amounting 
to  superstitious  worship,  such  as  is  for- 
bidden to  any  created  being. 

Whoever  reads  the  brief  story  of  her 

II 


12  MAJ?y  OF  NAZARETH, 

call  to  the  special  mission  assigned  her, 
as  the  mother  of  our  Savior,  Jesus  Christ, 
becomes  deeply  interested,  and  would 
love  to  know  more  of  her  than  is  possi- 
ble. Curiosity  in  this  respect  can  not  be 
gratified.  Only  an  occasional  glimpse  of 
her  real  life  is  all  that  is  vouchsafed  to 
us ;  but  the  little  known  of  her  is  enough 
to  call  forth  from  all  lovers  of  true 
womanhood  the  fullest  sympathy  with 
her  cousin  Elizabeth,  when  she  said: 
"Blessed  art  thou  among  women!" 
While  she  is  honored  as  the  mother  of 
our  Lord,  and  held  in  highest  esteem  for 
her  womanly  virtues,  there  is  no  reason 
in  her  personal  merits,  or  in  her  relation 
to  humanity,  for  bestowing  upon  her 
divine  honors,  or  for  exalting  her  above 
her  station  as  a  person  chosen  of  God  for 
special  service.  Although  honored  as 
the  instrument  of  special  grace,  she  is 
honored  only  in  her  sphere  as  a  woman 


THE  SUBJECT  STATED,  13 

meeting    the    providential   requirement 
laid  upon  her. 

In  this  relation  to  her  mission,  her  vir- 
ginity was  an  indispensable  factor,  ful- 
filling prophecy,  and  proving  the  divinity 
of  her  son;  yet  this  holy  estate,  with  the 
blessing  of  God  upon  it,  was  not  in  any 
sense  a  disparagement  to  marriage,  which 
is  an  ordinance  of  God  designed  for  the 
upbuilding  of  the  race  in  all  that  makes 
existence  a  blessing.  There  is  no  law, 
human  or  divine,  that  condemns  mar- 
riage, or  makes  motherhood  a  dishonor. 
It  is  never  forbidden,  except  at  the  be- 
hest of  priestcraft  and  superstition.  God 
instituted  the  marriage  relation  at  the 
beginning  of  human  history,  and  or- 
dained it  for  the  race  throughout  all  gen- 
erations. "Marriage  is  honorable  in  all, 
and  the  bed  undefiled."  Hence,  if  it 
shall  appear  that  Mary,  after  fulfilling 
her  mission  as  the  virmn  mother  of  the 


14  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

incarnate  Savior,  fulfilled  also  the  office 
of  wife  and  mother,  according  to  the 
order  of  God  in  developing  his  creative 
energy  for  the  propagation  of  the  race, 
not  one  ray  of  brilliancy  shall  be  dimmed 
in  the  crown  of  her  rejoicing.  She  is 
honored  in  every  relation  she  sustained, 
in  which  she  was  obedient  to  the  law  of 
her  being  and  the  law  of  God. 

The  proposition  laid  down  at  the  be- 
ginning of  this  treatise  indicates  the  aim 
of  all  that  is  to  be  said.  It  is  the  con- 
clusion reached  after  careful  considera- 
tion of  all  the  information  available. 
The  only  authoritative  record  to  be  con- 
sulted is  the  Gospel  history.  Myths, 
legends,  and  traditions  abound,  but  they 
are  not  to  be  regarded.  If  any  allega- 
tion in  this  proposition  falls  short  of 
support  from  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  it 
must  fall  out  of  our  conclusion,  and  by 
so  much  will  this  writing  prove  unsuc- 


THE  SUBJECT  STATED.  1 5 

cessful.  If  all  are  sustained,  not  the 
slightest  shadow  is  cast  upon  the  stain- 
less reputation  of  the  honored  subject  of 
this  sketch.  With  all  that  is  here  at- 
tributed to  her,  she  stands  forth  an  ex- 
ample of  purity  and  devotion,  faithful  in 
all  her  relations,  obedient  to  the  order  of 
God,  an  ornament  to  her  sex,  and  a  ben- 
ediction to  mankind.  Indeed  it  will  ap- 
pear, upon  investigation,  that  the  main- 
tenance of  all  the  allegations  of  this 
proposition  is  necessary  to  protect  her 
from  very  serious  implications — implica- 
tions which  involve  her  loyalty  to  her 
husband,  and  to  the  matrimonial  vows 
which  she  assumed  before  the  world  in 
becoming  a  wife. 

The  scope  of  the  inquiry  to  which  our 
proposition  leads  is  rather  wide,  not  be- 
cause of  anything  in  the  subject  itself 
which  is  particularly  difficult,  but  be- 
cause of  the  denials  and  gratuitous  as- 


l6  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

sumptions  made  from  time  to  time  by 
those  who  have  erected  upon  her  brief 
history  and  special  calling  the  mar\^el- 
ous  system  of  creature-worship,  not  to 
say  of  idolatry,  known  as  the  Mariolatry 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  It  will 
not  be  necessary,  fortunately,  that  we 
examine  the  growth  and  manifestations 
of  that  system.,  with  its  attendant  super- 
stitions, which  have  blinded  and  misled 
Romanists  through  generations  past; 
but,  since  the  foundation  of  the  Romish 
errors  is  laid  in  the  denial  of  the  chief 
allegations  of  our  proposition,  the  sup- 
port of  these  allegations  will  leave  the 
whole  fabric  of  Mariolatry  without  any- 
thing to  stand  upon.  *'If  the  founda- 
tions be  destroyed,  what  can  even  the 
righteous  do?"  The  Christian  intelli- 
gence of  our  times  revolts  at  the  extrav- 
agancies of  Romanistic  eulogies  of  the 
virtues  of  the  "ever-blessed  virgin,"  not 


THE  SUBJECT  STATED.  ij 

because  of  any  dislike  to  the  due  recoo-- 
nition   of   human    excellence   wherever 
found,  but  because  it  finds  what  is  purely 
human   exalted   into   the   divine.      The 
legends  of  superstition  are  held  forth  as 
revelations  from  God.     The  mother  of 
the  human  nature  of  the  Son  of  God  is 
deified  as  the  ''Mother  of  God,"  as  the 
''Queen  of  Heaven,"  and  made  the  ob- 
ject of  human  and  angelic  worship.    We 
stand  aghast  at  this  folly  of  the  "Dark 
Ages,"  and  yet  find  its  influence  wonder- 
fully effective  in  holding  the  adherents 
of  JRome  to  slavish  obedience  to  priestly 
rule  in  this  day  of  light,  and  in  this  land 
of  liberty. 

The  traditions  which  have  brought  to 
our  times  the  habit  of  attributing  to 
Mary  qualities  unknown  to  herself  and 
to  the  times  in  which  she  lived,  and  re- 
pugnant to  the  Holy  Scriptures,  when 
traced  to  their  sources,  betray  an  origin 


1 8  MAJ^V  OF  NAZARETH, 

in  the  midst  of  the  grossest  darkness 
that  ever  settled  on  the  Church;  yet 
these  traditions  are  not  the  subject  of 
our  study,  nor  in  the  range  of  our  in- 
quiry. Their  falsity  will  be  amply  ex- 
posed in  the  light  of  the  simple  record 
of  the  life  of  Mary  and  her  family,  as 
given  by  the  evangelists,  when  rightly 
interpreted.  Our  appeal  is  from  the  vain 
traditions  of  a  superstitious  age  to  the 
testimony  of  the  writers  of  the  New 
Testament.  These  are  witnesses  w^orthy 
of  all  credence.  They  wrote  without 
bias,  for  the  matters  now  in  question 
were  unknown  to  them.  The  disputes 
of  later  generations  had  not  then  arisen. 
Nor  is  their  testimony  conflicting  when 
properly  understood.  Our  business  is  to 
adjust  the  testimony  so  that  one  fact  will 
shed  light  upon  another,  and  so  that 
what  seems  obscure  will  become  clear 
when  brought  under  the  illumination  of 


THE  SUBJECT  STATED.  19 

that  which  is  too  direct  and  plain  to  be 
misunderstood.  We  are  to  interpret 
Scripture  by  Scripture.  In  performing 
this  task  we  are  to  remember  that  much 
of  the  material  from  which  testimony  is 
drawn  relates  to  the  subject  in  hand  only 
incidentally,  the  main  thought  of  the 
writer  being  quite  aside  from  the  issues 
pending.  While  these  writers  w^ere  alive 
such  issues  were  impossible;  for  there 
could  have  been  no  question  at  that  time 
about  the  family  of  the  wife  and  mother, 
whose  domestic  relations  have  since  then 
received  so  much  attention. 

Conditions  arising  from  traditional  ex- 
positions render  it  necessary  to  consider 
the  relations  of  two  families  to  one  an- 
other, and  to  the  apostleship  as  appointed 
or  constituted  by  the  Master  when  he 
first  chose  the  twelve.  The  one  family 
is  that  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  of  Naza- 
reth;   and  the  other  is  that  of  Cleopas 


20  MAJ^V  OF  NAZARETH. 

and  Mary,  whose  residence  is  not  given. 
In  the  family  of  Cleopas  and  Mary  there 
were  four  sons,  two  of  which  became 
apostles — namely,  James  the  Less,  and 
his  brother  Judas;  and  our  contention 
is,  that  there  were  also  four  sons,  besides 
daughters,  in  the  family  of  Joseph  and 
Mary,  which  were  not  disciples  till  after 
the  crucifixion.  The  coincidence — which 
is  somewhat  remarkable,  and  v/hich  has 
created  confusion  in  the  minds  of  ex- 
positors— is,  that  the  four  sons  in  each 
of  these  families  bore  the  same  names; 
that  is,  in  both  families  were  found 
James,  Joses,  Simon,  and  Judas,  al- 
though there  is  no  record  of  any  sisters 
in  the  family  of  Cleopas  and  Mary. 
Whether  these  two  families  were  related 
is  a  question.  Mary  seems  to  have  been 
a  favorite  name  in  those  days,  as  no  less 
than  five  Marys  are  found  among  the 
women    who    had    prominence    in    the 


THE  SUBJECT  STATED.  21 

apostolic  record:  First  of  all  was  Mary 
of  Nazareth,  the  mother  of  Jesus;  then, 
Mary,  wife  of  Cleopas,  and  mother  of 
James  the  Less;  then,  Mary  of  Mag- 
dala,  who  was  healed  of  afflictions 
caused  by  demons;  Mary  of  Bethany, 
sister  to  Martha  and  Lazarus ;  and  Mary 
the  m.other  of  John,  whose  surname  was 
Mark.  The  habit  of  naming  children 
for  relatives,  so  as  to  perpetuate  family 
names,  was  so  common  as  to  be  looked 
upon  as  a  duty.  When  John  the  Bap- 
tist was  born,  the  relatives  wanted  to 
give  him  the  name  borne  by  his  father, 
Zacharias;  and  when  his  mother,  Eliza- 
beth, said  his  name  should  be  John,  as 
the  angel  of  God  had  directed,  the  neigh- 
bors and  cousins  remonstrated,  and  said: 
"There  is  none  of  thy  kindred  called  by 
this  name."  Hence,  while  the  corre- 
spondence of  the  names  of  the  sons  in 
these    two   families  indicates  the  possi- 


22  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

bility  of  relationship,  it  does  not  shed 
light  upon  the  questions  to  be  solved  in 
the  study  now  before  us. 

The  real  question  is  as  to  whether 
there  were,  in  fact,  two  families  of  sons 
bearing  the  same  names  or  not.  In  the 
interest  of  the  Romanist  doctrine  of  the 
perpetual  virginity  of  Mary,  the  wife  of 
Joseph,  it  is  denied  that  she  had  any 
children  other  than  her  "first-born  Son." 
In  order  to  carry  out  this  thought,  it  has 
been  assumed  and  maintained  with  great 
vigor,  so  that  many  learned  non-Roman- 
ists accept  it,  that  the  sons  of  "the  other 
Mary'^  were  members  of  the  family  of 
Joseph,  being  cousins  to  Jesus,  and  on 
this  account  called  "his  brethren." 

In  this  interest  it  is  also  assumed  that 
these  two  Marys  were  sisters;  and  that 
James  the  Less,  and  Judas,  the  brother 
of  James,  who  were  of  "the  twelve," 
and  therefore  disciples  from  very  early 


THE  SUBJECT  STATED.  23 

in  the  public  ministry  of  Christ,  were  of 
**his  brethren,"  although  not  his  brothers 
in  any  proper  sense,  or  the  sons  of  his 
mother.  It  is  freely  conceded  that  this 
hypothesis  has  the  sanction  of  men  of 
great  worth  and  learning ;  that  it  is  very 
old,  probably  dating  from  the  third  cen- 
tury ;  and  that  no  particular  heresy  arises 
necessarily  from  its  adoption,  although 
it  is  necessary  to  the  Romish  dogma  of 
the  perpetual  virginity,  which  is  the 
basis  of  the  whole  scheme  of  Mariol- 
atry.  In  other  words,  one  might  con- 
cede the  identity  of  the  sons  of  "the 
other  Mary"  with  ''his  brethren"  with- 
out accepting  the  notion  of  perpetual 
virginity;  but  this  dogma  of  Rome  can 
not  possibly  subsist  without  this  as- 
sumption. 

As  intimated  above,  opinions  on  this 
subject  of  a  divergent  character  were 
expressed  at  a  very  early  period  in  the 


24  MAI^y  OF  NAZARETH. 

history  of  the  Church.  Citations  from 
early  writers,  sufficient  to  give  the  scope 
of  the  discussions,  would  swell  this 
treatise  beyond  its  proposed  limits,  and 
yet  fail  to  add  to  the  light  drawn  from 
the  Scriptures.  Origen  believed  the 
persons  called  the  brethren  of  Jesus 
were  the  sons  of  Joseph  by  a  former 
wife.  The  dominant  opinion  in  the 
Western  Church  was,  that  they  were  the 
sons  of  the  other  Mary;  while  that  in 
the  Eastern  Church  was  favorable  to  the 
position  of  Origen.  If  the  consensus 
of  opinion  at  so  early  a  day  could  be 
obtained,  it  would  be  influential;  but 
that  is  impossible,  since  as  little  una- 
nimity prevailed  then  as  now.  We  must 
therefore  proceed  without  bias  from  the 
expressed  opinions  of  any  writers  out- 
side of  the  New  Testament.  Modern 
commentators  follow  one  another  in  a 
beaten  track,  with  conjectures  founded 


THE  SUBJECT  STATED.  25 

on  very  superficial  study,  as  one  may  see 
by  testing  their  reasons  for  the  opinions 
preferred.  Of  course,  it  is  seemingly 
presumptuous  to  speak  with  confidence 
where  men  eminent  for  learning  speak 
tentatively,  or  without  dogmatism;  but 
it  is  to  be  remembered  that  most  of 
those  who  have  done  so  were  absorbed 
with  other  great  themes,  and  treated  this 
subject  as  incidental.  But  few  have  given 
it  direct  and  original  investigation.  When 
all  of  us  have  done  our  best,  there  will 
still  remain  some  obscurities  in  the  rec- 
ord, with  regard  to  which  hard  questions 
may  arise.  It  is  not  expected  to  remove 
all  the  difficulties  which  scholars  have 
encountered  for  ages;  but  our  utmost 
hope  is  to  trace  the  facts  given,  so  as  to 
present  conclusions  in  harmony  with  all 
that  is  written,  consistent  with  them- 
selves, and  creditable  to  the  character  of 
the  families  most  intimately  concerned. 


ClfrapfBr  II. 

THE  BIRTH  OF  JESUS. 

tHE  date  of  the  birth  of  Jesus  is 
not  settled  with  absolute  certainty. 
Matthew  says:  *'In  the  days  of  Herod 
the  king.*'  This  is  not  definite,  nor  was 
it  the  purpose  of  Matthew  to  make  it  so. 
The  best  authorities  known  place  it  in 
the  fifth  year  before  the  era  called  Anno 
Domini.  Luke  tells  us  it  was  while  Cy- 
renius  was  governor  of  Syria.  This  ap- 
proximation to  the  date  is  sufficient. 

The  account  given  by  Matthew  of  the 
marriage  of  Joseph  and  Mar}%  and  of 
the  birth  of  the  child,  is  less  minute 
than  that  given  by  Luke;  but  it  has  a 
different  purpose.  It  is  preparatory  to 
the  representation  of  prophecies  fulfilled 

by  the  cruelty  of  Herod,  and  by  the  so- 
26 


THE  BIRTH  OF  JESUS.  2/ 

journ  in  Egypt.  It  is  as  follows:  "Now 
the  birth  of  Jesus  Christ  was  on  this 
wise:  When  as  his  mother  Mary  was 
espoused  to  Joseph,  before  they  came 
together,  she  was  found  with  child  by 
the  Holy  Ghost.  Then  Joseph,  her  hus- 
band, being  a  just  man,  and  not  willing 
to  make  her  a  public  example,  was 
minded  to  put  her  away  privily.  But 
while  he  thought  on  these  things,  be- 
hold, the  angel  of  the  lyord  appeared  unto 
him  in  a  dream,  saying,  Joseph,  thou  son 
of  David,  fear  not  to  take  unto  thee 
Mary  thy  wife:  for  that  which  is  con- 
ceived in  her  is  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  And 
she  shall  bring  forth  a  son,  and  thou 
shalt  call  his  name  Jesus:  for  he  shall 
save  his  people  from  their  sins.  Now 
all  this  was  done,  that  it  might  be  ful- 
filled which  was  spoken  of  the  Lord  by 
the  prophet,  saying.  Behold,  a  virgin 
shall  be  with  child,  and  shall  bring  forth 


28  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

a  son,  and  they  shall  call  his  name  Em- 
manuel, which  being  interpreted  is,  God 
with  us.  Then  Joseph,  being  raised 
from  sleep,  did  as  the  angel  of  the  Lord 
had  bidden  him,  and  took  unto  him  his 
wife:  and  knew  her  not  till  she  had 
brought  forth  her  first-born  son :  and  he 
called  his  name  Jesus."     (Matt,  i,  18-26.) 

This  statement  is  designedly  general ; 
but  it  contains  two  expressions  which 
are  wonderfully  expressive,  and  utterly 
irreconcilable  with  the  notion  that  this 
babe  was  her  only  child.  But  the  appli- 
cation is  reserved  till  after  the  fuller  ac- 
count given  by  Luke  is  brought  out. 

''And  it  came  to  pass  in  those  days 
that  there  went  out  a  decree  from  Caesar 
Augustus  that  all  the  world  should  be 
taxed.  (And  this  taxing  was  first  made 
when  Cyrenius  was  governor  of  Syria.) 
And  all  went  to  be  taxed,  every  one  into 
his  own  city.     And  Joseph  also  went  up 


THE  BIRTH  OF  JESUS.  29 

from  Galilee,  out  of  the  city  of  Naza- 
reth, into  Judea,  unto  the  city  of  David, 
which  is  called  Bethlehem  (because  he 
was  of  the  house  and  lineage  of  David), 
to  be  taxed  with  Mary  his  espoused  wife, 
being  great  with  child.  And  so  it  was, 
that,  while  they  were  there,  the  days 
were  accomplished  that  she  should  be 
delivered.  And  she  brought  forth  her 
first-born  son,  and  wrapped  him  in  swad- 
dling clothes,  and  laid  him  in  a  manger; 
because  there  was  no  room  for  them  in 
the  inn."     (Luke  ii,  1-7.) 

Both  Joseph  and  Mary  were  of  the 
lineage  of  David.  Two  genealogies  are 
given,  one  by  Matthew  and  one  by 
Luke;  but  they  are  not  the  same.  It 
is  thought  by  those  who  have  most 
thoroughly  investigated  the  questions 
raised  by  their  divergences,  that  one  is 
the  line  of  Joseph's  own  descent,  and 
the  other  that  of  Mary;  but  that,  in  that 


30  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

of  Mary,  the  name  of  her  husband  is 
used  as  her  official  or  legal  representa- 
tive. Mary  was  the  espoused  wife  of 
Joseph.  She  took  his  name,  and  came 
inider  his  lawful  protection  as  a  wife. 
Under  divine  direction,  he  took  her,  and 
gave  her  a  home,  and  all  needed  care, 
shielding  her  person  and  her  good  name 
from  the  shadow  of  suspicion  of  evil 
till  her  first-born  son  was  brought  forth. 
A  gracious  providence  guided  her  foot- 
steps, and  those  of  her  husband,  through 
all  the  trials  her  acceptance  of  the  spe- 
cial mission  from  God  brought  to  her. 
The  formality  of  her  marriage  with 
Joseph  is  not  given,  but  it  was  doubt- 
less observed  according  to  the  custom 
of  the  times.  It  is  enough  for  us  to 
know  that  they  became  husband  and 
wife. 

This   supernatural    conception  is   re- 
ported without  hesitation,  and  without 


THE  BIRTH  OF  JESUS.  3 1 

any  attempt  at  proof  or  explanation,  as 
if  the  work  of  God  needed  no  defense. 
It  is  plainly  affirmed  with  sufficient  cir- 
cumstantiality, and  left  to  vindicate  it- 
self in  the  life  of  the  child  born,  the 
only  proof  tendered  being  the  declaration 
that  it  was  an  event  come  to  pass  in  ful- 
fillment of  prophecy.  What  God  does 
is  expected  to  ^commend  itself  to  men 
who  recognize  his  authority,  without 
formal  vindication.  This  is  particularly 
so  with  miracles.  Whenever  any  event 
comes  into  the  range  of  human  observa- 
tion, bearing  upon  its  face  the  appear- 
ance of  the  supernatural,  being  without 
conformity  to  the  known  laws  of  nature, 
it  is  proper  and  duty  to  study  it  in  the 
character  it  assumes;  and  if  it  be  found 
belonging  to  a  class  of  events  attributa- 
ble to  the  immediate  agency  of  God,  the 
moral  reasons  for  its  occurrence  are  to  be 
considered  as  the  most  weighty  and  as 


32  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

entitled  to  our  highest  respect.  The  ab- 
sence of  natural  causes  is  not  an  obstacle 
to  faith,  where  the  moral  reasons  justify 
divine  intervention,  since  dependence 
on  natural  causes  would  destroy  the 
character  of  the  event  as  a  miracle. 
Supernatural  events  are  not  necessarily 
lawless;  but  their  dependence  is  on 
forces  or  powers  above  the  knov/n  laws 
of  nature — upon  something  able  to  con- 
travene or  set  aside  known  laws — al- 
though the  superior  power  may  be  in 
strict  accordance  with  the  higher  laws 
of  the  higher  realm  of  God's  great  uni- 
verse. In  the  material  world  it  often 
happens  that  a  known  law  of  physics  is 
arrested  in  its  course  by  the  interven- 
tion of  a  higher  law,  which  is  as  nat- 
ural as  is  the  law  arrested,  when  the 
superior  prevails  to  the  suspension  or 
setting  aside  of  the  results  which  would 
naturally  flow   from   the   uninterrupted 


THE  BIRTH  OF  JESUS.  33 

course  of  the  inferior  law.  The  higher 
law  which  is  displayed  in  miraculous 
events,  is  something  not  definable,  be- 
yond the  fact  that  it  is  the  mode  of  the 
divine  procedure,  in  the  exercise  of 
power  beyond  that  contained  in  the 
system  of  nature  which  he  has  ordained. 
As  he  has  not  exhausted  his  resources 
by  his  investment  in  laws  for  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  natural  world,  we  are 
not  to  deny  the  possibility  of  divine  in- 
tervention for  moral  purposes  where 
these  subserve  higher  ends  than  can  be 
reached  by  the  orderly  working  of  the 
forces  known  as  natural  laws. 

God  has  often  given  children  in  an- 
swer to  prayer.  Isaac  was  born  as  one 
out  of  due  time,  a  child  of  promise,  in- 
volving the  supernatural  with  scarcely 
less  positiveness  than  did  the  birth  of 
Jesus.  Samuel  was  a  son  asked  of  the 
Lord,  and  granted  to  Hannah  as  a  token 
3 


34  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

of  special  favor.  John  the  Baptist  was 
the  son  of  Elizabeth,  born  to  her  *'who 
had  been  called  barren,"  and  by  special 
promise  and  grace,  when  she  was  now 
"in  her  old  age." 

The  supernatural  birth  of  the  son  of 
Mary  was  in  fulfillment  of  prophecy, 
one  of  the  predictions  of  which  is  in 
Isaiah  vii,  14:  "Therefore  the  Lord 
himself  shall  give  you  a  sign;  Behold, 
a  virgin  shall  conceive,  and  bear  a  son, 
and  shall  call  his  name  Immanuel." 
Whatever  local  or  metaphorical  mean- 
ing this  passage  may  have  had  in  its 
primary  and  subordinate  application  to 
the  rulers  of  Israel  in  the  days  of  the 
prophet,  it  is  enough  for  all  the  purposes 
of  Christian  faith  to  find  the  Evangelist 
giving  it  literal  application  to  the  child 
of  Bethlehem.  This  is  its  literal  mean- 
ing, its  true  and  ultimate  signification, 
whatever  other  events  may  have  been 


THE  BIRTH  OF  JESUS.  35 

embraced  in  the  scope  of  its  connections. 
This  supernatural  child  was  also  the 
subject  of  another  prediction  by  the 
same  prophet:  ''Unto  us  a  child  is  born, 
unto  us  a  son  is  given:  and  the  govern- 
ment shall  be  upon  his  shoulder:  and 
his  name  shall  be  called  Wonderful, 
Counsellor,  The  mighty  God,  The  ever- 
lasting Father,  The  Prince  of  Peace. 
Of  the  increase  of  his  government  and 
peace  there  shall  be  no  end,  upon  the 
throne  of  David,  and  upon  his  kingdom, 
to  order  it,  and  to  establish  it  with  judg- 
ment and  with  justice  from  henceforth 
even  for  ever.  The  zeal  of  the  Lord  of 
hosts  will  perform  this."  (Isaiah  ix,  6,  7.) 
The  Messianic  character  of  this  proph- 
ecy is  unquestionable,  except  by  the 
sheerest  obstinacy  in  unbelief.  It  ap- 
plies to  no  other.  He  is  the  supernat- 
ural child,  the  son  given.  While  others 
have  been  born  in  answer  to  prayer,  and 


36  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

have  fulfilled  providential  missions,  to 
the  Son  of  Mary  alone  belongs  the  dis- 
tinguishing honor  of  being  *'the  only 
begotten  of  the  Father,  full  of  grace 
and  truth." 

Marvelous  manifestations  attended  his 
birth,  and  sacred  wonders  crowded  the 
days  of  his  early  childhood.  The  angel 
Gabriel  visited  the  virgin  chosen  to 
be  his  mother,  announced  his  coming, 
and  pronounced  her  "blessed  among 
women."  Angels  proclaimed  his  ad- 
vent to  the  waiting  shepherds,  and  filled 
the  heavens  with  their  chorus  of  praise. 
To  the  astonished  watchers,  who  were 
terrified  by  the  wonders  they  saw  and 
heard,  an  angel  spoke  in  assuring  ac- 
cents, saying:  "Fear  not:  for,  behold,  I 
bring  you  good  tidings  of  great  joy, 
which  shall  be  to  all  people.  For  unto 
you  is  born  this  day  in  the  city  of 
David  a   Savior,  which   is   Christ   the 


THE  BIRTH  OF  JESUS.  2>7 

Lord.  And  this  shall  be  a  sign  unto 
you:  Ye  shall  find  the  babe  wrapped  in 
swaddling  clothes,  lying  in  a  manger. 
And  suddenly  there  was  with  the  angel 
a  multitude  of  the  heavenly  host  prais- 
ing God,  and  saying,  Glory  to  God  in 
the  highest,  and  on  earth  peace,  good- 
will toward  men."  (Luke  ii,  9-14.) 

No  wonder  that  Mary  *'kept  all  these 
things,  and  pondered  them  in  her  heart.'^ 
Filled  with  wonder,  as  she  must  have 
been,  not  the  slightest  incident  could 
have  been  forgotten ;  and  yet  the  future 
of  the  precious  life  committed  to  her 
keeping  was  graciously  kept  from  her 
knowledge.  It  was  not  yet  time  for  the 
iron  to  pierce  her  soul.  Years  of 
motherly  anxiety  were  before  her,  with 
alternations  of  sunshine  and  shadow. 
From  highest  hopes,  with  unmistakable 
tokens  of  God's  special  favor  and  assur- 
ances of  a  divine  mission  for  the  child  to 


38  MAI^V  OF  NAZARETH. 

fulfill,  slie  was  brought  into  humbling  ex- 
periences of  sorrowful  privations,  to  grap- 
ple with  distressing  forebodings  of  im- 
pending evil.  Steadfast  trust  in  God, 
and  silent  submission,  became  the  habit 
of  her  soul  during  the  mysterious  trial. 
Loyal  obedience  to  every  requirement 
of  Jewish  law  was  promptly  given. 
When  that  law  directed  circumcision, 
the  child  was  circumcised;  and  when 
the  time  came  for  the  mother's  purifica- 
tion, and  for  presenting  an  offering  for 
the  child  in  the  temple,  not  a  jot  of  the 
law  was  disregarded.  *'And  when  eight 
days  were  accomplished  for  the  circum- 
cising of  the  child,  his  name  was  called 
Jesus,  which  was  so  named  of  the  angel 
before  he  was  conceived  in  the  womb." 
Two  lines  of  instruction  were  to  be  fol- 
lowed— that  of  the  lav/,  and  that  of  the 
angel  of  God;  but  there  is  never  conflict 
in  divine  requirements,  and,  therefore, 


THE  BIRTH  OF  JESUS.  39 

these  lines  never  clashed.  God  never, 
by  any  special  revelation,  leads  any  one 
away  from  the  path  of  obedience  to  his 
law.  The  next  step  to  be  taken  was  to 
observe  the  requirement  of  the  law  con- 
cerning purification.  This  law  is  found 
in  the  twelfth  chapter  of  Leviticus. 
Thirty-three  days  from  the  time  of  the 
circumcision  of  the  child  were  required 
to  fulfill  it.  At  the  end  of  that  time,  a 
lamb  and  a  young  pigeon,  or  a  turtle- 
dove, must  be  *' brought  unto  the  door  of 
the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation,  unto 
the  priest;'*  and  if  the  person  be  unable 
to  bring  the  lamb,  then  two  turtledoves, 
or  two  young  pigeons,  will  suffice.  The 
mother  must,  therefore,  remain  at  the 
place  of  the  birth  of  the  child  till  after  it 
is  forty  days  old.  It  was  a  long  time  for 
her  and  her  husband  to  stay  away  from 
their  home  in  Nazareth;  but  the  law's 
demand  was  imperative,  and  impatience 


40  MARY  OF  NAZARETH, 

must  not  be  indulged.  It  is  not  known 
whether  room  had  been  found  in  the  inn 
for  these  strangers  in  Bethlehem,  or 
whether  they  continued  camping  out, 
with  the  grotto-manger  for  their  best 
shelter.  The  latter  was  most  likely  true. 
The  weather  was  probably  favorable  for 
that  kind  of  life,  as  it  was  at  the  season 
of  the  year  when  the  shepherds  kept 
their  flocks  in  the  open  fields,  which 
they  did  not  do  in  the  winter.  Through 
the  winter  months,  including  December 
and  March,  they  gathered  sheep  and  cat- 
tle into  the  folds  and  under  shelter ;  but  in 
warm  weather  they  left  them  out,  them- 
selves remaining  with  them  during  the 
night.  While  we  can  not  fix  the  month 
in  which  the  Savior  was  born,  we  can 
confidently  infer  that  it  was  not  in  the 
winter,  when  the  gathered  flocks  would 
leave  as  little  room  in  the  mangers  as 
was  in  the  inn.    However  this  was,  these 


THE  BIRTH  OF  JESUS.  4 1 

parents  tarried  in  Bethlehem  till  the 
forty  days  expired,  when  they  started  for 
their  home  in  Galilee,  prepared  to  stop 
in  Jerusalem  on  their  way  to  do  for 
mother  and  child  whatever  the  law  re- 
quired. Being  in  humble  circumstances, 
they  provided  the  offering  which  was  ac- 
ceptable from  poor  people — a  pair  of 
turtledoves,  or  two  young  pigeons.  ''And 
when  the  days  of  her  purification  accord- 
ing to  the  law  ot  Moses  were  accom- 
plished, they  brought  him  to  Jerusalem 
to  present  him  to  the  Lord." 

Here  new  surprises  awaited  them. 
There  was  nothing  unusual  in  the  offer- 
ing brought,  or  in  the  ceremony  per- 
formed by  the  priest;  but  other  attend- 
ing circumstances  attested  the  Divine 
presence,  and  made  the  service  memo- 
rable. Two  venerable  servants  of  God 
appeared  in  the  temple  at  the  time,  who 
recognized  the  child  as  the  Christ,  and 


42  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

Uttered  words  of  blessing  and  prophecy, 
which  filled  the  mother  and  Joseph  with 
amazement.  Only  the  inspired  words 
can  suitably  represent  the  aged  Simeon  : 
*'And,  behold,  there  was  a  man  in 
Jerusalem,  whose  name  was  Simeon; 
and  this  man  was  righteous  and  devout, 
looking  for  the  consolation  of  Israel : 
and  the  Holy  Spirit  was  upon  him.  And 
it  had  been  revealed  unto  him  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  that  he  should  not  see  death, 
before  he  had  seen  the  Lord's  Christ. 
And  he  came  in  the  Spirit  into  the  tem- 
ple :  and  when  the  parents  brought  in 
the  child  Jesus,  that  they  might  do  con- 
cerning him  after  the  custom  of  the  law, 
then  he  received  him  into  his  arms,  and 
blessed  God,  and  said. 
Now  lettest  thou  thy  servant  depart,  O 

Lord, 
According  to  thy  word,  in  peace; 
For  mine  eyes  have  seen  thy  salvation, 


THE  BIRTH  OF  JESUS,  43 

Which  thou   hast  prepared  before  the 

face  of  all  peoples ; 
A  light  for  revelation  to  the  Gentiles, 
And  the  glory  of  thy  people  Israel. 
And   his   father   and   his   mother  were 
marveling   at   the   things    which   were 
spoken  concerning  him.      And  Simeon 
blessed  them,  and  said  unto  Mary  his 
mother,  Behold,  this  child  is  set  for  the 
falling  and  rising  up  of  many  in  Israel ; 
and  for  a  sign  which  is  spoken  against; 
yea,  and  a  sword  shall  pierce  through 
thine   own   soul,   that   thoughts  out  of 
many  hearts  may  be  revealed."    (I^uke 
ii,  25-35.     Revised  Version.) 

Before  their  surprise  at  these  marvel- 
ous words  could  find  utterance,  and  be- 
fore they  could  grasp  their  meaning, 
these  parents  v/ere  greeted  by  another 
venerable  saint.  *'And  there  was  one 
Anna,  a  prophetess,  the  daughter  of 
Phanuel,  of  the  tribe  of  Asher:  she  was 


44  MARY  OF  NAZARETH, 

of  a  great  age,  and  had  lived  with  a  hus- 
band seven  years  from  her  virginity; 
and  she  was  a  widow  of  about  fourscore 
and  four  years,  which  departed  not  from 
the  temple,  but  served  God  with  fastings 
and  prayers  night  and  day.  And  she 
coming  in  at  that  instant  gave  thanks 
likewise  unto  the  Lord,  and  spake  of 
him  unto  all  them  that  looked  for  re- 
demption in  Jerusalem.'^  Neither  the 
exposition  of  the  words  of  these  aged 
servants  of  God,  nor  of  their  habits  of 
worship  in  the  temple,  comes  within  the 
range  of  our  purpose.  We  only  note  the 
fact  that  there  were  some  in  Jerusalem 
who  were  waiting  for  the  consolation 
which  only  the  coming  of  the  Messiah 
could  bring ;  and  that  the  Spirit  of  God 
rested  upon  devout  souls  before  the  usher- 
ing in  of  the  Spirit's  special  dispensation. 
In  some  way  the  Spirit  of  God  revealed 
the  presence  of  this  Christ-child  to  these 


THE  BIRTH  OF  JESUS.  45 

saints  who  looked  for  him,  till  their 
hearts  glowed  with  celestial  warmth,  as 
they  poured  benedictions  upon  these 
parents,  and  upon  the  child,  breathing 
the  atmosphere  of  the  border-land  of 
heaven,  and  leaving  no  lack  of  proof  of 
Divine  inspiration. 

*'And  when  they  had  performed  all 
things  according  to  the  law  of  the  Lord, 
they  returned  into  Galilee,  to  their  own 
city  Nazareth."  (Luke  ii,  39.)  Such  is 
the  story  of  Luke.  They  were  on  their 
way  home,  and  they  made  no  needless 
delay.  This  is  the  fullest  and  most  cir- 
cumstantial account  we  have  of  the  in- 
fancy of  Jesus.  It  traces  him  from  the 
manger  in  Bethlehem  to  his  mother's 
home  in  Nazareth.  It  accounts  for  the 
providential  presence  of  the  parents  at 
the  place  of  his  predicted  birth;  fur- 
nishes the  data  for  ascertaining  the  time 
of  this  wonderful  event;  gives  the  par- 


ar^apto  III. 

HIS  INFANCY— THE  STAR  AND  THE 
MAGI. 

yi^ITH  all  the  carefulness  of  Luke 
Vf#  in  tracing  the  early  days  of  Jesus, 
from  his  birth  to  his  first  trip  to  his  fu- 
ture home  in  Nazareth,  nothing  is  said 
of  the  star  in  the  East,  the  visit  of  the 
magi,  the  wrath  of  Herod,  the  flight  into 
Egypt,  the  slaughter  of  the  babes  of 
Bethlehem,  or  the  return  from  Egypt. 

Luke  purposely  discontinues  his  nar- 
rative at  the  close  of  the  ceremonies  re- 
quired by  the  law  of  Moses,  when  Jo- 
seph and  Mary,  with  the  child,  took  their 
departure  from  Jerusalem  for  Nazareth. 
This  was  the  natural  thing  for  them  to 
do,  under  the  circumstances.  The  sup- 
position that  they  returned  from  Jerusa- 
48 


HIS  INFANCY.  49 

lem  to  Bethlehem,  and  postponed  their 
return  to  Galilee  till  after  the  flight  to 
Egypt  and  return,  is  not  only  contrary 
to  Ivuke's  positive  statement,  but  it  is 
out  of  harmony  with  all  the  probabilities 
of  the  case,  in  view  of  their  fixed  resi- 
dence in  Nazareth,  and  of  their  hasty 
and  temporary  absence  for  enrollment. 

There  is  evidently  a  long  hiatus  after 
the  close  of  Luke's  story,  before  he  re- 
sumes it  again,  which  Matthew  fills  with 
the  incidents  of  the  flight  to  Egypt;  yet 
not  so  as  to  obviate  questionings.  When 
did  the  star  appear?  When  did  the  magi 
arrive  in  Jerusalem?  Whither  did  they 
go  when  they  left  Jerusalem?  Where 
did  they  find  the  young  child  and  his 
mother?  These  very  natural  questions 
can  not  be  answered  to  the  entire  satis- 
faction of  any  one.  Reasonable  conjec- 
ture must  be  employed  in  order  to  the 
completion  of  any  hypothesis  one  may 


50  3fAJ?V  OF  NAZARETH. 

adopt  for  the  explanation  of  these  won- 
derful incidents,  as  related  without  date 
or  chronological  order  by  the  first  evan- 
gelist. 

Skeptical  writers  have  taken  advan- 
tage of  the  manifest  incorrectness  of  the 
popular  beliet  with  regard  to  the  time  of 
the  appearance  of  the  star,  and  the  visit 
of  the  magi,  and  the  flight  to  Egypt,  and 
have  alleged  positive  and  irreconcilable 
contradictions  between  Matthew  and 
Ivuke  touching  the  early  days  of  the 
young  child's  life.  It  is  held  that  the 
story  of  the  ^'  wise  men"  was  legendary  or 
mythical,  akin  to  the  stories  of  the  apoc- 
ryphal Gospels,  unknown  to  Luke,  un- 
recognized by  any  other  writer,  and  un- 
worthy of  belief.  It  is  true  that  Luke 
makes  no  mention  of  it;  but  it  is  not 
true  that  he  leaves  no  room  for  the  events 
it  describes.  It  is  also  claimed  that  Mat- 
thew was  equally  ignorant  of  the  visit  to 


HIS  INFANCY.  5 1 

the  temple,  and  of  the  testimony  to  the 
child's  future,  given  by  the  aged  Simeon 
and  Anna.  Of  course,  when  properly 
interpreted,  there  is  no  contradiction  be- 
tween these  evangelists;  but  one  sup- 
plements the  other.  Luke  tells  nothing 
that  took  place  after  the  child  was  taken 
from  the  temple ;  and  what  Matthew  re- 
lates must  have  occurred  after  that  time 
The  whole  story  of  the  star  and  the  magi 
and  the  flight  into  Egypt  is  not  to  be  re- 
jected because  there  is  no  room  for  these 
things  between  the  birth  of  the  child 
and  the  return  to  Nazareth.  If  ]\Iatthew 
placed  all  these  occurrences  inside  of  the 
first  forty  days  of  the  child's  life,  there 
would  be  difficulty  in  harmonizing  the 
two  writers ;  but  he  does  not. 

It  is  not  to  be  denied  that  the  popular 
impression  is  at  fault.  If  we  undertake 
to  find  the  magi  in  Bethlehem  before  the 
child  was  taken  home  to   Nazareth,  by 


52  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

the  way  of  tlie  temple,  failure  is  una- 
voidable ;  and  yet  this  is  the  commonly- 
accepted  view.  Evidently  it  is  the  idea 
followed  by  artists  and  poets.  The  pic- 
tures represent  the  magi  as  opening  their 
treasures  and  presenting  their  gifts  to 
the  child  in  the  manger,  in  the  presence 
of  the  "beasts  of  the  stall;"  and  some 
of  the  most  beautiful  songs  ever  sung 
describe  the  magi  as  following  the  star 
to  the  "manger-bed."  It  seems  a  pity 
to  interfere  with  the  poetic  license  which 
allows  these  inaccuracies;  but  these  pic- 
tures and  songs  create  the  popular  im- 
pression which  opens  the  way  for  the 
cold  criticisms  of  the  unbelieving;  and 
neither  the  songs  nor  the  pictures  are  of 
any  value  in  comparison  with  the  con- 
sistency of  the  Gospel  narratives. 

The  account  given  by  Matthew  is  as 
follows:  " Now  when  Jesus  w^as  born  in 
Bethlehem   of   Judea,   in    the    days    of 


HIS  INFANCY.  53 

Herod  the  king,  behold,  there  came  wise 
men  from  the  East  to  Jerusalem,  saying, 
Where  is  he  that  is  born  king  of  the 
Jews?  for  we  have  seen  his  star  in  the 
East,  and  are  come  to  worship  him. 
When  Herod  the  king  heard  these  things, 
he  was  troubled,  and  all  Jerusalem  with 
him.  And  when  he  had  gathered  all  the 
chief  priests  and  scribes  of  the  people 
together,  he  demanded  of  them  where 
Christ  should  be  born.  And  they  said 
unto  him,  In  Bethlehem  of  Judea:  for 
thus  it  is  written  by  the  prophet,  And 
thou  Bethlehem,  in  the  land  of  Judah, 
art  not  the  least  among  the  princes  of 
Judah:  for  out  of  thee  shall  come  a  gov- 
ernor, who  shall  rule  my  people  Israel. 
Then  Herod,  when  he  had  privily  called 
the  wise  men,  inquired  of  them  dili- 
gently what  time  the  star  appeared. 
And  he  sent  them  to  Bethlehem,  and 
said.  Go,  search  diligently  for  the  young 


54  3IARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

child:  and  when  ye  have  found  him, 
bring  me  word  again,  that  I  may  come 
and  worship  him  also.  When  they  had 
heard  the  king  they  departed;  and,  lo, 
the  star,  which  they  saw  in  the  east, 
went  before  them,  till  it  came  and  stood 
over  where  the  young  child  was.  When 
they  saw  the  star,  they  rejoiced  with  ex- 
ceeding great  joy.  And  when  they  were 
come  into  the  house,  they  saw  the  young 
child  w4th  Mary  his  mother,  and  fell 
down  and  worshiped  him:  and  when 
they  had  opened  their  treasures,  they 
presented  unto  him  gifts,  gold,  and  frank- 
incense, and  myrrh.  And  being  warned 
of  God  in  a  dream  that  they  should  not 
return  to  Herod,  they  departed  into  their 
own  country  another  way.  And  when 
they  were  departed,  behold,  the  angel  of 
the  Lord  appeareth  to  Joseph  in  a  dream, 
saying,  Arise,  and  take  the  young  child 


HIS  INFANCY.  55 

and  his  mother,  and  flee  into  Egypt,  and 
be  thou  there  until  I  bring  thee  word : 
for  Herod  will  seek  the  young  child  to 
destroy  him.  When  he  arose,  he  took 
the  young  child  and  his  mother  by  night, 
and  departed  into  Eg3^pt,  and  was  there 
until  the  death  of  Herod:  that  it  might 
be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  of  the 
Lord  by  the  prophet,  saying,  Out  of 
Egypt  have  I  called  my  son.  Then 
Herod,  when  he  saw  that  he  was  mocked 
of  the  wise  men,  was  exceeding  wroth, 
and  sent  forth,  and  slew  all  the  children 
that  were  in  Bethlehem,  and  in  all  the 
coasts  thereof,  from  two  years  old  and 
under,  according  to  the  time  which  he 
had  diligently  inquired  of  the  wise  men. 
Then  was  fulfilled  that  which  was  spoken 
by  Jeremy  the  prophet,  saying,  In 
Rama  was  there  a  voice  heard,  lamenta- 
tion, and  weeping,  and  great  mourning, 


56  MAJ^V  OF  NAZARETH. 

Rachel  weeping  for  her  children,  and 
would  not  be  comforted,  because  they 
were  not."     (Matt,  ii,  1-18.) 

Assuming  the  truth  of  this  narrative, 
the  first  thing  to  do,  in  order  to  bring  it 
into  line  with  the  description  of  the 
events  of  the  early  days  of  the  young 
child's  life  as  given  by  Luke,  is  to  find 
out,  if  possible,  the  time  of  this  remark- 
able visit  of  the  "wise  men,"  and  of  the 
sensation  produced  in  Jerusalem  by  their 
visit.  There  is  evidently  too  much  of  it 
to  have  occurred  within  the  forty  days 
before  the  presentation  in  the  temple; 
and  since  Luke  so  closely  follows  the 
child  up  to  that  time,  he  certainly  would 
not  have  omitted  all  allusion  to  these 
events  if  they  had  come  within  the  period 
of  his  narrative. 

But  judgment  must  finally  be  based 
on  what  Matthew  says,  rather  than  upon 
what   Luke  does  not  say.     Why,  then 


HIS  INFANCY.  57 

was  this  visit  to  Bethlehem  impossible 
before  the  child  was  taken  away?  It  is 
generally  conceded  that  the  magi  came 
from  Persia.  They  are  understood  to 
have  been  Chaldean  astrologers,  learned 
in  the  wisdom  of  the  Orient,  and  men  of 
wealth  and  dignity.  Such  men  moved 
deliberately,  and  never  with  haste.  After 
observing  the  star  and  studying  its  im- 
port, they  considered  the  journey,  and 
made  preparation  for  it.  It  is  not  prob- 
able that  they  started  for  some  weeks, 
and  possibly  months,  after  the  star  ap- 
peared. Their  journey  would  occupy 
several  weeks  after  it  was  begun.  Their 
speediest  transportation  was  by  camels. 
Then  they  tarried  in  Jerusalem  till  they 
could  interview  Herod,  and  till  the  chief 
priests  and  scribes  could  search  the  Sa- 
cred Writings,  and  report  to  the  king  a 
conclusion  with  regard  to  the  place  where 
the  Messiah  should  be  born.     Before  all 


58  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

this  could  be  accomplished,  the  **  forty- 
days"  were  expired,  and  Jesus  had  been 
presented  in  the  temple,  after  which 
ceremony,  Luke  says,  "they  returned 
into  Galilee,  to  their  own  city  Nazareth.'^ 
The  record  itself  wull  not  permit  the 
supposition  that  the  magi  appeared  upon 
the  scene  in  Bethlehem  before  the  pre- 
sentation in  the  temple.  The  reason 
is — and  it  is  commanding — that  imme- 
diately after  the  departure  of  the  magi 
to  their  own  country,  Joseph  took  the 
young  child  and  his  mother,  by  night, 
with  every  appearance  of  haste,  and  de- 
parted into  Egypt.  There  was  no  such 
thing  as  the  presentation  of  the  child  in 
the  temple,  with  the  impressive  occur- 
rences which  Luke  records  in  connection 
with  that  service,  after  the  wise  men  had 
disappointed  Herod,  and  after  Joseph 
had  been  warned  of  God  in  a  dream  to 
"flee  into  Egypt.'*     After  that  warning. 


HIS  INFANCY.  59 

Joseph  made  no  public  appearance  in 
Jerusalem  with  the  child  and  his  mother, 
but  without  delay  sought  safety  by  car- 
rying the  child  beyond  the  reach  of 
Herod's  power.  This  settles  the  ques- 
tion beyond  dispute  as  to  the  non-ap- 
pearance of  the  magi  between  the  birth 
of  the  child  and  the  return  to  Nazareth. 
The  popular  impression,  carried  out  in 
art  and  in  song,  is,  that  the  wise  men 
not  only  went  to  Bethlehem  and  found 
the  child,  but  that  they  found  him  "  in 
the  manger,"  the  place  of  his  birth.  But 
the  words  of  Matthew  do  not  authorize 
this  impression.  Indeed,  it  is  an  utterly 
groundless  impression,  contrary  to  the 
language  of  the  record.  ^'And  when 
they  were  come  into  the  house,  they 
saw  the  young  child  with  Mary  his 
mother."  Whether  the  "house"  they 
were  in  was  their  own  house  in  their 
own  city  of  Nazareth — whither  they  had 


6o  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

gone — or  not,  is  not  so  material  at  this 
point ;  but  it  is  certain  they  were  "  in 
the  house,"  and  not  yet  in  the  place  of 
his  birth,  where  he  was  laid  in  the 
manger. 

It  is  not  denied  that  the  account  as 
given  by  Matthew  wears  upon  its  face 
an  appearance  as  if  the  magi  went  from 
Jerusalem  to  Bethlehem,  and  there  found 
the  babe.  It  is  not  strange  that  such  is 
the  popular  belief.  After  consulting 
the  priests  and  scribes,  Herod  ^'sent 
them  to  Bethlehem.'*  They  followed  his 
advice  so  far  as  to  start  in  that  direction. 
The  journey  was  easily  made ;  two  hours 
would  accomplish  it.  If  they  were  going 
the  right  way,  with  a  plain  road  before 
them,  and  almost  in  sight  of  their  des- 
tination, why  should  the  star  again  ap- 
pear to  guide  them?  There  has  always 
been  strict  economy  in  supernatural 
manifestations,  when  the  end  was  possi- 


HIS  INFANCY.  6 1 

ble  by  natural  means.  These  men  were 
following  not  only  the  instruction  of  the 
king,  but  that  of  prophetic  inspiration 
as  well.  They  were  going  to  Bethlehem, 
as  they  had  been  told  in  Jerusalem,  to 
make  inquiry  for  the  child,  whose  ap- 
pearance had  not  been  a  secret,  but  was 
known  to  the  shepherds,  and  perhaps  to 
the  populace.  Additional  miraculous  in- 
tervention can  scarcely  be  accounted  for, 
if  they  were  in  the  way  to  find  the  ob- 
ject of  their  search.  They  were  little 
more  than  out  sight  of  Jerusalem  before 
Bethlehem  would  come  into  view.  Why, 
then,  should  the  star  appear?  Was  it 
really  needed?  The  words  of  Matthew 
neither  say,  nor  do  they  necessarily 
mean,  that  the  star  led  the  wise  men  to 
Bethlehem.  It  intercepted  them  in  their 
course,  and  such  was  their  joy  on  seeing 
it  that  the  instruction  of  Herod  was  no 
longer  regarded,  unless  it  agreed  with 


62  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

the  leading  of  the  star.  *'And,  lo,  the 
star  which  they  saw  in  the  east,  went 
before  them,  till  it  came  and  stood  over 
where  the  young  child  was.'*  Not  over 
the  manger,  nor  necessarily  over  any 
house  in  Bethlehem,  but  "over  where 
the  young  child  was."  According  to 
Luke's  account,  he  had  been  taken  to 
the  temple  before  this,  and  with  his 
mother  and  Joseph  "to  their  own  city 
Nazareth.'* 

"The  star  went  before  them."  This 
sounds  as  if  they  were  following  it  in  a 
way  that  they  knew  not.  Possibly  it 
guided  them  during  the  night  till  they 
found  their  devious  way  around  Jerusa- 
lem to  the  north  ot  the  city,  in  the  di- 
rection to  Nazareth,  "  where  the  young 
child  was."  Much  traveling  was  done 
in  the  night  in  that  climate,  and  per- 
chance these  star-led  travelers  spent 
more  than  one  night  in  their  journey  to 


HIS  INFANCY.  63 

the  place  where  the  star  rested.  In- 
deed, the  intimation  is  rather  plain  that 
they  did ;  for  they  must  have  slept  on 
the  way  after  they  left  Jerusalem,  which 
they  would  not  do  in  going  to  Bethle- 
hem, because  they  dreamed,  and  were 
warned  of  God  in  their  dream  not  to  re- 
turn to  Herod.  If  this  be  conjecture,  it 
is  in  the  line  of  harmony  in  the  Gospel 
narratives.  Something  of  the  kind  is 
necessary  to  this  end;  for  the  account 
given  by  Luke,  which  so  definitely  fixes 
dates,  and  traces  the  child  so  carefully, 
requires  some  draft  upon  the  imagina- 
tion to  provide  for  this  visit  of  the  magi 
at  all,  while  there  is  not  a  word  in  the 
story  of  Matthew  inconsistent  with  it. 

After  they  had  found  the  place,  and 
^'were  come  into  the  house,"  they  made 
their  prostrations  as  in  the  presence  ot 
royalty,  and  then  opened  their  treasures 
and  made  their  presents.     This   done, 


64  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

"  they  departed  into  their  own  country, 
another  way."  Their  obHgation  to  Herod 
was  no  longer  upon  them,  since  his  in- 
structions did  not  lead  them  to  the  child. 
From  Nazareth  they  could  easily  do  this, 
as  they  were  very  nearly  on  the  line  to 
Damascus,  or  to  any  main  route  to  Per- 
sia; while  from  Bethlehem  the  natural 
way  would  be  through  Jerusalem,  al- 
though they  could  find  a  difficult  line 
eastward  by  way  of  the  Dead  Sea  and 
the  fords  of  the  Jordan. 

Immediately  after  this  visit  of  the 
magi,  the  flight  into  Egypt  began. 
There  was  no  reason  for  delay,  other 
than  hasty  preparation  for  the  trip,  as 
all  the  requirements  of  the  law  of  Moses 
concerning  the  mother  and  child  had 
been  met.  He  had  been  circumcised  on 
the  eighth  day,  and  he  had  been  pre- 
sented to  the  Lord  in  the  temple,  and 
the  proper  offering  had  been  made  for 


HIS  INFANCY.  65 

him  when  forty  days  old,  so  that  no 
ceremonial  duty  remained  unfulfilled. 
His  parents  were  at  liberty  to  go  with 
him  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  Herod, 
without  violating  any  law.  They  started 
by  night.  It  was  probably  more  com- 
fortable to  travel  by  night  than  by  day. 
The  journey  to  Egypt  is  not  described. 
It  is  thought  the  sojourn  there  lasted 
nearly  two  years.  Traditions  respecting 
the  life  of  this  family  in  Egypt  are  not 
trustworthy.  They  were  hidden  from 
view  for  a  time,  and  all  conjectures  con- 
cerning their  doings  or  experiences  are 
vain. 

When  Herod  found  that  the  magi 
would  not  return  to  him,  his  anger 
burned.  He  felt  that  he  had  been 
''mocked"  and  cruelly  deceived.  His 
kingly  pride  was  wounded,  and  his  ma- 
licious design  upon  the  life  of  the  "young 
child"  seemed  thwarted.  This  he  de- 
5 


66  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

termiiied  should  not  be.  He  would 
destroy  the  possible  aspirant  to  the 
throne  if  it  cost  the  life  of  every  child  in 
Bethlehem.  "Then  Herod,  when  he 
saw  that  he  was  mocked  of  the  wise 
men,  was  exceeding  wroth,  and  he  sent 
forth  and  slew  all  the  children  that  were 
in  Bethlehem,  and  in  all  the  coasts 
thereof,  from  two  years  old  and  under, 
according  to  the  time  which  he  had  dili- 
gently inquired  of  the  wise  men."  The 
crime  of  murder  was  not  new  to  Herod, 
but  the  cruelty  of  this  slaughter  has  been 
seldom  equaled  in  the  history  of  human 
atrocities.  It  is  thought  that  not  less 
than  forty  innocents  fell  victims  to  his 
inhuman  rage,  which  is  not  an  extrava- 
gant estimate. 

There  is  an  objection  to  the  thought 
here  advanced,  that  Jesus  had  already 
gone  from  Bethlehem  before  the  wise 
men  appeared,  on  the  ground  that  if  he 


HIS  INFANCY.  67 

was  safe  at  home  in  Nazareth,  there 
would  have  been  no  need  of  the  flight 
from  there  to  Egypt,  in  order  to  escape 
the  danger  at  Bethlehem.  This  is  the 
most  plausible  objection  to  the  chrono- 
logical order  herein  favored,  that  has 
been  made,  or  that  seems  possible;  and 
yet  it  is  inconclusive.  If  safety  were 
certain  at  Nazareth,  the  flight  to  Egypt 
was  unnecessary,  even  from  Bethlehem; 
for  in  that  case  all  that  was  needed  was 
that  Joseph  and  Mary  abandon  any 
thought  they  might  have  been  cherish- 
ing of  adopting  Bethlehem  as  their 
home,  and  return  to  their  own  city  and 
home  in  Nazareth.  If  there  was  safety 
there  from  Herod's  persecutions  on  one 
hypothesis,  there  was  also  on  the  other. 
God's  thought  was,  that  the  child 
should  be  removed  out  of  Herod's  juris- 
diction. He  must  therefore  leave  Gal- 
ilee as  well  as  Judea,  as  it  is  not  likely 


68  MARY  OF  NAZARETH, 

that  all  the  danger  was  in  the  neighbor- 
hood of  Bethlehem. 

There  is  also  a  note  of  time  in  this 
report  of  Herod's  rage,  which  is  of 
value  in  judging  of  the  period  of  the 
visit  of  the  magi.  When  they  first 
came  to  Jerusalem  to  make  inquiry 
concerning  the  child,  Herod  inquired  of 
them  "diligently,'*  or  very  particularly, 
what  time  the  star  appeared.  He 
sought  to  know  the  age  of  the  child  at 
that  time.  Then,  after  their  departure, 
when  he  found  they  did  not  return,  he 
issued  the  decree  for  the  destruction  of 
the  children  "from  two  years  old  and 
under,  according  to  the  time  he  had 
diligently  inquired  of  the  wise  men." 
He  estimated  the  age  of  the  child  from 
the  time  of  the  appearance  of  the  star, 
as  he  had  learned  it  from  his  strange 
visitors.  It  is  clear  that  only  a  little 
time  elapsed  after  they  left  Herod,  till 


HIS  INFANCY.  69 

he  knew  they  had  left  the  country,  per- 
haps a  few  weeks,  and  probably  not 
a  month ;  and  yet  he  included  the  chil- 
dren "two  years  old"  in  his  decree  of 
death.  Of  course,  this  estimate  of  time 
can  not  be  taken  as  exact,  since  the 
cruel  king  would  allow  a  margin,  so 
as  to  make  sure  of  his  intended  victim; 
but  if  the  star  appeared  one  year  before 
the  decree  of  death  to  the  children,  it 
would  still  bring  the  wise  men  to  Jeru- 
salem, and  to  Bethlehem,  if  they  went 
to  Bethlehem,  some  time  after  the  pre- 
sentation in  the  temple  and  the  return 
to  Nazareth.  It  can  scarcely  be  pos- 
sible, in  the  light  of  all  the  facts,  that 
the  wise  men  found  the  child  before  he 
was  six  months  old;  and  yet  the  con- 
secutive and  minutely  definite  story  of 
Luke  takes  the  mother  and  child  away 
from  Bethlehem  at  the  end  of  the  days 
of  her    purification    according    to    the 


70  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

law  of  Moses,  and  presents  him  in  the 
temple  while  on  the  way  home ;  show- 
ing that,  in  the  natural  order  of  things, 
they  would  reach  Nazareth  in  less  than 
fifty  days  after  the  child  was  born. 

Many  writers  pass  over  this  matter 
as  of  little  importance,  simply  assum- 
ing that  the  wise  men  found  the  babe 
in  Bethlehem,  without  suspecting  any 
difficulty  in  harmonizing  the  accounts 
of  Matthew  and  Luke.  This  is  unfor- 
tunate, and  inexcusable,  indeed,  in  any 
who  pretend  to  accuracy.  Others  see 
the  difficulty  in  adjusting  the  chrono- 
logical order  of  events,  so  as  to  make 
room  for  the  visit  of  the  magi  in  Beth- 
lehem, and  assume  that  Joseph  and 
Mary  returned  to  Bethlehem,  after  the 
presentation  in  the  temple.  If  it  were 
absolutely  necessary  to  locate  the  visit 
of  the  wise  men  in  Bethlehem,  in  order 
to  meet    the    language   of  Matthew,  a 


HIS  INFANCY.  7 1 

return  trip  would  have  to  be  assumed. 
It  is,  however,  the  height  of  folly  to 
think  of  the  presentation  in  the  temple 
as  occurring  after  the  wise  men  had 
been  there  and  departed.  Then,  if  the 
wise  men  found  the  child  in  Bethlehem 
at  all,  it  was  after  the  presentation,  and 
there  must  have  been  a  return  trip  after 
leaving  the  temple,  either  before  or 
after  the  return  to  Nazareth.  Matthew 
mentions  their  *' turning  aside"  to  dwell 
at  Nazareth,  as  an  afterthought;  but 
that  was  not  till  after  the  return  from 
Egypt.  Then  they  went  to  Nazareth, 
that  being  out  of  the  jurisdiction  of 
Archelaus,  the  kingdom  of  Herod  being 
divided  on  his  death;  Archelaus  reign- 
ing in  Judea,  and  his  half-brother  be- 
coming tetrarch  of  Galilee.  The  so- 
journ in  Egypt  had  broken  up  their 
home  and  loosened  their  ties  in  Naz- 
areth, so    that  it    is    not    strange    that 


72  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

they  now  thought  of  taking  up  their 
abode  in  the  city  of  David,  where 
Joseph  was  enrolled,  and  where  the 
child  was  born,  whose  birth  had  given 
such  distinct  intimations  that  he  was 
destined  to  sit  upon  the  throne  of 
David,  to  order  and  rule  the  kingdom 
of  Israel.  There  was  a  Providence 
which  directed  the  steps  of  those  to 
whom  was  committed  the  charge  of 
this  young  child;  and  Providence  never 
favored  any  thought  Joseph  and  Mary 
might  have  entertained  of  bringing  up 
this  child  in  Bethlehem.  It  would  have 
been  inconsistent  with  the  experiences 
they  had  been  through,  for  them  to  plan 
to  live  in  Bethlehem  without  some  in- 
timation of  the  Divine  will;  and  it  does 
not  accord  with  any  right  conceptions 
of  God's  dealings  with  this  family  to 
suppose  that  they  were  divinely  led  to 
leave  their  home  in  Nazareth,  and  trans- 


HIS  INFANCY.  73 

fer  all  their  interests  to  BetHlehem,  just 
a  few  days  or  weeks  before  the  necessity 
would  be  upon  them  to  move  on  to 
Egypt.  This  thought  appears  legiti- 
mate, and  it  antagonizes  the  supposi- 
tion of  any  return  to  Bethlehem  after 
the  presentation  in  the  temple,  or  after 
the  return  to  Nazareth,  before  starting 
to  Egypt. 

Writers  sometimes  remind  us  that 
we  often  find  events  mentioned  in  the 
Scriptures  as  if  they  were  closely  con- 
nected in  time,  when  in  fact  they  are 
separated  by  months  and  years.  There 
are  examples  of  this  kind  that  might 
be  cited;  and  so  it  is  held  that  the  re- 
turn to  Nazareth  mentioned  by  Luke, 
may  not  have  occurred  immediately 
when  they  left  the  temple,  as  the  lan- 
guage seems  to  imply,  but  might  have 
followed  the  sojourn  in  Egypt,  and  be 
the  same  trip    described  or  mentioned 


74  MAi?r  or  nazareth, 

by  Matthew.  To  this  view  there  are 
strong  objections.  If  the  description 
of  the  child-life  of  Jesus,  found  in 
Luke,  were  as  general  as  is  the  lan- 
guage of  Matthew,  there  would  be  more 
reason  for  taking  this  supposition  as 
probable;  but  there  is  evident  exactness 
in  Luke's  narrative,  as  far  as  he  carries 
it,  which  is  to  the  point  of  the  depar- 
ture of  the  family  for  their  home  in 
Nazareth.  Luke  did  not  mention  the 
visit  of  the  magi,  for  the  reason  that  his 
plan  did  not  carry  the  story  of  the  child 
to  the  time  of  its  occurrence.  The 
same  is  true  of  the  flight  to  Egypt. 
He  only  followed  the  movements  of 
the  family  till  the  requirements  of  the 
law  were  fulfilled,  when  they  all  started 
back  to  Galilee.  His  is  a  Judean  his- 
tory of  the  child.  What  occurred  in  the 
family,  or  happened  to  the  child  in 
Galilee  or  in  Egypt  i^  passed  over  by 


HIS  INFANCY.  75 

him  till  the  child  and  his  mother  again 
appear  in  Judea,  and  are  found  in  the 
temple.  He  left  the  family  when  they 
left  the  temple,  and  he  resumed  his  nar- 
rative when  the  family  returned  with 
the  child,  now  twelve  years  old.  The 
whole  story  of  Matthew  relates  to 
events  between  these  two  points.  When 
Luke  resumed,  and  related  the  second 
temple  scene,  wherein  the  child  of 
twelve  displayed  such  wisdom  in  the 
presence  of  the  *' doctors,"  he  described 
only  what  occurred  on  that  one  occa- 
sion, and  spoke  of  the  return  of  the 
family  again  to  Nazareth,  where  the 
child  remained  subject  to  his  parents; 
and  then  he  broke  off  the  narrative  as 
before  till  the  appearace  of  John  the 
Baptist,  whose  office  it  was  to  introduce 
the  public  ministry  of  Christ. 

When  Joseph  and  Mary  left  Nazareth 
before  going  to  Egypt,  whether  they  first 


76  MARV  OF  NAZARETH. 

went  to  Bethlehem  or  not,  they  evidently- 
broke  up  their  residence,  so  that  when 
the  sojourn  in  Egypt  was  over  they  con- 
templated taking  up  their  abode  in 
Judea.  It  was  natural  that  they  should 
think  of  this,  since  they  must  have  re- 
garded the  future  of  the  child,  which  was 
their  special  charge,  as  related  to  the 
metropolis  of  the  Jewish  people,  so  as  to 
make  it  proper  that  he  should  grow  up 
in  that  vicinity.  It  was  not,  therefore, 
their  first  thought  to  return  to  Nazareth ; 
but  while  hesitating  because  of  their 
fear  of  Archelaus,  the  voice  of  warning 
in  a  dream  determined  them.  It  was 
evidently  not  the  Divine  purpose  that 
they  should  reside  in  Bethlehem,  and 
there  is  doubt  whether  they  ever  saw 
the  city  of  David,  the  birthplace  of  Jesus, 
after  they  closed  their  temporary  visit, 
and  took  the  young  child  to  the  temple, 
when  forty  days  old,  on  their  way  to 


HIS  INFANCY.  77 

their  home  in  Nazareth,  which  they  had 
temporarily  left  for  the  purpose  of  en- 
rollment. Since  there  is  no  mention  in 
the  Scriptures  of  any  return  to  Bethle- 
hem, either  from  Jerusalem  or  from 
Nazareth  ;  and  since  there  is  nothing  in 
the  words  of  Matthew  which  necessarily 
takes  the  wise  men  into  Bethlehem  when 
they  started  to  go  there;  and  since  it  is 
plain  that  the  sudden  reappearance  of 
the  star,  when  they  were  approaching 
the  suburbs  of  that  city,  intercepted 
them  for  a  purpose,  and  caused  them  to 
disregard  the  instructions  received  in 
Jerusalem  ;  and  since  the  star  "  went  be- 
fore them,''  and  they  followed  it,  not  to 
the  manger,  but  *'  till  it  came  and  stood 
over  where  the  young  child  was ;''  and 
since  the  wise  men  first  saw  the  young 
child  with  Mary  his  mother  ^'when  they 
were  come  into  the  house;"  and  since 
they  had  been  sleeping  and  dreaming 


78  MARY  OF  NAZARETH, 

after  seeing  the  star,  the  implication  is 
very  strong  that  they  found  Mary  and  the 
child  in  their  own  house,  in  their  own 
city,  Nazareth.  With  this  order  of  events 
there  is  not  the  slightest  disagreement 
between  Matthew  and  Luke,  nor  is  there 
occasion  to  assume  a  return  trip  to  Beth- 
lehem, which  is  neither  asserted  nor 
hinted  at  in  the  Scriptures. 

If  we  must  assume  that  there  was  a 
return  to  Bethlehem;  and  if  we  must 
find  the  magi  in  that  city ;  and  if  we 
must  believe  that  the  star  reappeared  to 
guide  them  where  they  were  really  going, 
and  when  they  were  nearly  there, — then, 
by  all  means,  let  the  assumption  be  that 
the  parents  went  from  the  temple  to 
Nazareth,  as  Luke  affirms,  and  that  the 
unrecorded  return  was  from  Nazareth  to 
Bethlehem.  The  assumption  in  this 
form  w411  not  contradict  either  of  the 
evangelists,  and  as  it  is  only  an  assump- 


HIS  INFANCY.  79 

tion,  it  will  encounter  nothing  worse 
than  the  implication  that  the  parents 
gave  up  their  home  in  Nazareth,  and  re- 
moved to  Bethlehem,  on  their  own  mo- 
tion, without  consulting  providential 
indications,  since  all  these  point  to  Naz- 
areth, and  not  to  Bethlehem,  as  the 
child's  providential  home.  It  is  always 
difficult  to  reach  conclusions  on  his- 
torical points  in  the  absence  of  testi- 
mony, yet  it  is  sometimes  necessary  to 
form  theories  in  order  to  supply  omis- 
sions in  the  record.  Well  for  us,  if  in 
emergencies  requiring  this,  we  do  not 
substitute  mere  guesses  for  rational  in- 
ferences. It  is  particularly  true,  and 
should  not  be  astonishing,  that  when  the 
supernatural  works  with  the  natural 
forces  of  life  in  bringing  about  a  provi- 
dential purpose,  unexpected  turns  "  sur- 
prise "  us,  even  to  our  bewilderment. 
The  teachable  spirit  is  therefore  becom- 


8o  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

ing  wlien  we  study  the  brief  outlines 
given  us  of  the  history  of  the  child-life 
of  the  son  of  Mary.  God  was  with  him, 
and  watchful  love  guarded  his  steps  in 
every  movement  from  his  birth  in  Beth- 
lehem till  his  mission  was  crowned  with 
triumph  in  his  ascension  from  Olivet  to 
his  Father's  throne. 


(EFjapfsr  IV. 

MARY,  AND  "THE  OTHER  MARY." 

f  ^  INCB  the  aim  of  this  treatise  is 
^^  more  than  biographical,  its  design 
can  be  best  accomplished  without  at- 
tempting to  restrict  the  treatment  of 
facts  recorded  to  the  chronological  order, 
even  if  such  an  order  were  possible.  Be- 
yond the  events  making  up  the  history, 
it  looks  to  the  solution  of  the  most  diffi- 
cult problems  which  have  arisen  in  con- 
nection with  the  brief  record  we  have  of 
this  extraordinary  Galilean  family.  The 
chief  question  calling  for  attention  has 
come  down  to  us  from  an  early  period  in 
the  history  of  the  Church,  not  later  than 
the  third  century,  and  has  to  do  with 
far-reaching  influences  in  the  Christian 

world.     It  is  as  to  whether  any  other 
6  8i 


8o  MAJ^y  or  NAZARETH. 

ing  when  we  study  the  brief  outlines 
given  us  of  the  history  of  the  child-life 
of  the  son  of  Mary.  God  was  with  him, 
and  watchful  love  guarded  his  steps  in 
every  movement  from  his  birth  in  Beth- 
lehem till  his  mission  was  crowned  with 
triumph  in  his  ascension  from  Olivet  to 
his  Father's  throne. 


Or^apf^r  IV. 

MARY,  AND  "THE  OTHER  MARY." 

SINCE  the  aim  of  this  treatise  is 
more  than  biographical,  its  design 
can  be  best  accomplished  without  at- 
tempting to  restrict  the  treatment  of 
facts  recorded  to  the  chronological  order, 
even  if  such  an  order  were  possible.  Be- 
yond the  events  making  up  the  history, 
it  looks  to  the  solution  of  the  most  diffi- 
cult problems  which  have  arisen  in  con- 
nection with  the  brief  record  we  have  of 
this  extraordinary  Galilean  family.  The 
chief  question  calling  for  attention  has 
come  down  to  us  from  an  early  period  in 
the  history  of  the  Church,  not  later  than 
the  third  century,  and  has  to  do  with 
far-reaching  influences  in  the  Christian 
world.     It  is  as  to  whether  any  other 


82  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

child  than  Jesus  was  born  into  this  fam- 
ily. A  very  simple  question,  indeed,  it 
appears  to  be  at  first  blush  ;  but  around 
it  have  raged  some  of  the  most  acri- 
monious and  persistent  discussions  of 
Christendom,  and  upon  a  single  view  of 
it  have  been  founded  some  of  the  most 
powerful  institutions  of  the  Church  of 
Rome.  The  doctrine  of  the  perpetual 
virginity  of  the  mother  of  Jesus  has  long 
been  vital  to  that  Church,  as  upon  it  rests 
the  whole  system  of  Mariolatry  or  crea- 
ture-worship, which  has  been  the  source 
of  so  much  superstition  and  spiritual 
blindness  among  Romanists  for  ages. 

In  our  present  study  of  the  subject,  it 
is  not  in  our  thought  to  undertake  the 
impossible  task  of  filling  up  the  long 
period  of  silence  which  the  Scriptures 
leave,  no  doubt  providentially,  with  re- 
gard to  this  family,  extending  from  the 
time  Jesus  was  twelve  years  old,  till  he 


MARV,  AND  ''THE  OTHER  MARV.''      83 

was  about  thirty ;  for  there  are  no  data, 
either  in  the  sacred  writings,  or  in  any 
other  writings,  to  guide  in  such  an  effort. 
It  was,  perhaps,  according  to  the  pur- 
pose of  God,  that  nothing  should  be  told 
us  concerning  Joseph  and  Mary  during 
this  time.  Their  domestic  life  does  not 
seem  to  have  been  designed  for  public 
observation  any  more  than  the  private 
affairs  of  any  other  family,  except  when 
it  had  some  special  significance  in  con- 
nection with  the  life  of  Jesus,  the  first- 
born son  of  Mary.  The  later  allusions 
to  the  family  indicate  to  us  nothing  from 
which  we  can  infer  anything  other  than 
that  they  lived  a  quiet  and  honorable 
life,  awaitijig  providential  developments 
with  regard  to  Jesus,  and  properly  caring 
for  the  other  children  which  Providence 
gave  them.  It  is  remarkable  that  in  all 
the  Scriptural  allusions  to  this  family, 
Jesus  is  always  the  central  figure.    Mary 


84  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

appears  always  as  *'  his  mother,"  and  the 
other  children  are  mentioned  as  *'  his 
brethren,"  and  ''his  sisters."  Whatever 
is  said  of  these  is  incidental,  and  comes 
ont  only  as  it  relates  to  him  and  his 
work. 

This  brings  us  to  the  great  fact  in 
question.  There  was  a  family  in  Naz- 
areth, of  which  Joseph  and  Mary  were 
the  head,  in  which  Jesus  lived  as  a  son, 
and  was  known  as  such  to  all  the  neigh- 
bors ;  and  in  which  there  were  other 
children  known  as  his  brothers  and  sis- 
ters. This  fact  is  well  attested,  being 
recognized  by  all  the  evangelists.  So 
far  as  appearances  go,  there  was  nothing 
extraordinary  in  the  constitution  or  com- 
position of  this  family.  The  husband 
and  wife  were  lawfully  married,  and 
their  occupation  was  creditable.  They 
were  of  the  industrial  class,  and  probably 
shrank    from   notoriety,  although   they 


MARY,  AND  ''THE  OTHER  MARV^      85 

were  well  aware  that  in  their  household 
was  one  destined  in  some  way  to  accom- 
plish an  extraordinary  mission. 

The  presumption  is,  that  the  brothers 
and  sisters  in  this  family  were  what  the 
language  so  clearly  means — the  sons  and 
daughters  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  and  "his 
brethren"  and  *'his  sisters."  There  was 
certainly  no  law  against  the  existence  of 
such  a  family,  and  nothing  discreditable 
to  any  of  the  parties.  Motherhood  was 
not  then  dishonorable.  Indeed  it  was 
the  glory  of  womanhood.  It  is  incon- 
ceivable how  the  idea  originated  that 
perpetual  virginity  could  honor  the  name 
of  Mary.  She  had  honored  the  period 
of  her  virginity,  and  entered  the  estate 
of  matrimony  so  as  to  honor  that  by  liv- 
ing the  life  of  a  loyal  wife,  and  becoming 
a  loving,  faithful  mother.  The  assump- 
tion that  she  could  or  did  at  the  same 
time  observe  the  vows  of  celibacy  and  of 


86  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

matrtmojiy  is  absurd.  No  accurate  writer 
would  speak  of  her  son  as  *'her  first- 
born son,"  if  there  were  not  others  born 
to  her  at  a  later  period.  Not  only  is 
the  implication  of  this  expression  clear 
and  unmistakable,  but  the  other  chil- 
dren are  found  and  known  by  name. 

Not  only  was  Jesus  called  *'her  first- 
born son" — implying  that  others  were 
born  later — but  the  limit  to  the  period 
of  her  virginity  is  distinctly  marked  in 
the  declaration  concerning  her  marriage. 
Joseph  took  his  "espoused  wife,'*  and 
yet  as  a  wife  he  "knew  her  not  U7ttil — '* 
If  she  never  became  a  wife,  what  lan- 
guage is  this?  It  is  not  merely  mean- 
ingless, but  it  is  misleading  and  false. 
It  stamps  the  transaction  with  fraud. 
She  pretended  to  what  w^as  unreal,  un- 
natural, deceptive,  and  fraudulent.  Why 
it  should  be  deemed  a  glory  to  her,  or 
be  taken  as   an   evidence  of  sanctity,  to 


MARY,  AND  ''THE  OTHER  MARV.''       87 

live  in  such  a  false  relation,  is  most 
wonderful.  The  consensus  of  virtuous 
womanhood  is  against  it. 

Joseph  and  Mary  have  been  accused 
with  indifference,  or  with  lack  of  pa- 
rental watchfulness,  on  the  occasion  of 
their  "first-born  son's"  appearance  in 
the  temple  when  but  twelve  years  old. 
They  started  on  the  homeward  journey 
without  looking  after  him.  They  thought 
he  was  in  the  com.pany;  but  they  did 
not  know,  till  they  had  gone  a  day's  jour- 
ney, that  he  was  not  among  his  "kins- 
folk and  acquaintance. '^  Then,  of  course, 
their  anxiety  was  aroused.  Careful  par- 
ents, with  so  tender  a  charge,  would  not 
have  been  so  easy  about  him,  unless  they 
were  occupied  with  the  care  of  younger 
children.  In  that  event,  their  conduct 
was  natural,  and  free  from  blameworthi- 
ness. On  any  other  supposition,  it  is 
hard  to  excuse  them,  or   to  free  them 


8S  iMARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

from  the  charge  of  neglect.  It  is  not 
said  that  younger  children  were  with 
them ;  but  this  supposition  is  not  to  their 
discredit,  and  it  is  the  best  vindication 
of  their  course  that  can  be  devised.  If 
there  were  younger  children,  the  boy  of 
twelve  would  have  acquired  some  ex- 
perience and  confidence  in  looking  out 
for  himself. 

There  is  another  side  to  this  repre- 
sentation of  the  family  of  Joseph  and 
Mary,  of  course,  or  the  great  discussions 
of  past  centuries  would  not  have  taken 
place.  In  those  discussions  almost  every 
phase  of  the  question  has  been  can- 
vassed, and  several  different  hypotheses 
have  been  set  forth  to  account  for  the 
existence  of  a  family  of  children  in  the 
house  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  known  as 
the  brothers  and  sisters  of  Jesus,  with- 
out allowing  them  to  be  such  in  fact. 
The  different  explanations  offered  must 


3fARV,  AND  ''THE  OTHER  MARV^      89 

not  be  disregarded,  but  whatever  of  merit 
or  plausibility  there  is  in  them  must  be 
brought  out. 

The  study  of  these  hypotheses  will 
lead  to  an  inquiry  concerning  another 
Mary,  known  in  the  Scriptures  as  the 
wife  of  Cleopas,  the  mother  of  James 
the  Less,  and  frequently  mentioned  as 
*'the  other  Mary.''  This  Mary  seems  to 
have  had  sons  bearing  the  same  names 
as  *'the  brethren  of  Jesus,'*  on  which 
account  many  have  taken  her  sons  to 
be  the  ones  the  Scriptures  call  **his 
brethren.'*  To  give  color  to  this  sup- 
position, the  very  remarkable  claim  has 
been  set  up  that  these  two  Marys  were 
sisters ;  and  som.e  have  gone  so  far  as  to 
hold  that  they  were  both  widows,  living 
together  in  Nazareth  as  one  family, 
where  the  children  of  *'  the  other  Mary," 
were  taken  by  the  neighbors  to  be  the 
brothers  and  sisters  of  Jesus.     The  the- 


90  3fARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

ory  is,  that  they  were  not  his  brothers 
in  the  sense  of  being  the  sons  of  his 
mother,  but  only  *' cousins" — the  word 
brethren  being  used  in  so  general  a 
sense  as  to  denote  relatives,  without  re- 
gard to  the  degree  of  kinship.  Of  course, 
the  word  ** brethren'*  is  used  sometimes 
to  indicate  a  fellowship  in  a  common 
cause  or  work,  but  only  when  its  meta- 
phorical use  or  meaning  is  apparent. 
When  used  to  express  blood  kinship,  its 
literal  meaning  must  prevail,  unless  a 
different  meaning  is  not  only  obvious, 
but  necessary.  When  the  angel  spqke 
to  Mary  of  her  relative,  the  wife  of  Zach- 
arias,  who  was  to  be  the  mother  of  John 
the  Baptist,  he  said:  *'Thy  cousin  Eliza- 
beth.'* The  word  ^'brother,"  or  *'breth- 
ren,"  is  as  definite  in  the  Greek  of  the 
New  Testament  as  with  us;  so,  also,  is 
the  word  *' cousin."  These  words  are 
not  synonymous,  nor  are  they  used  in- 


MARY,  AND  ''THE  OTHER  JlfARV.''       91 

differently.  Neither  of  the  evangelists 
said  "brethren"  when  "cousins"  were 
meant. 

There  is,  however,  no  available  proof 
that  the  children  of  this  "other  Mary" 
were  the  cousins  of  our  Lord.  It  is  not 
conceded  that  the  two  Marys  were  sis- 
ters. So  remarkable  a  thing  as  two 
sisters  in  the  same  family  bearing  the 
same  name  is  not  to  be  accepted  with- 
out the  most  indubitable  and  explicit 
testimony.  It  is  too  unusual,  if  not  pre- 
posterous, to  be  received  on  slight 
ground.  No  evangelist  asserts  it;  no 
properly-read  passage  hints  it,  or  im- 
plies it;  and  no  alleged  fact  requires  it 
to  be  taken  as  an  inference.  It  is  sim- 
ply a  mistake.  The  only  basis  for  it  is 
a  single  verse  in  John's  Gospel,  which 
is  misread  and  misinterpreted  when  that 
meaning  is  given  to  it.  The  slight  am- 
biguity in  one  verse,  the  real  meaning 


92  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

of  which  is  easily  gained,  is  quite  too 
narrow  a  foundation  for  an  hypothesis  of 
such  extraordinary  character  to  rest  upon. 
We  must  study  the  passage,  and  see  the 
unreasonableness  of  the  construction 
which  makes  sisters  of  the  two  IMarys. 
There  is  something  peculiar  in  this 
matter  of  kinship  with  Jesus.  He  had 
many  ^' kinsfolk'^  among  whom  he  might 
have  traveled  from  Jerusalem  on  the  oc- 
casion of  his  visit  to  that  city  when 
twelve  years  old.  He  had  two  *'  cousins  " 
in  the  apostleship  from  the  beginning, 
without  regarding  James  the  Less  as 
one.  The  fact  has  not  been  so  generally 
recognized,  but  is  nevertheless  pretty 
clearly  established,  that  the  mother  of 
Zebedee's  children  was  sister  to  Mary, 
the  mother  of  Jesus,  and  that  she  was 
the  "sister'*  who  was  present  with  her 
at  the  cross.  Hence  it  follows  that 
James    and  John,  the   sons  of  Zebedee, 


MARY,  AND  ''THE  OTHER  MAR)'.''      93 

were  his  cousins.  The  proof  of  this  is 
much  more  satisfactory  than  anything 
that  can  be  said  in  favor  of  the  proposi- 
tion that  James  the  Less  sustained  that 
relation  to  him.  In  fact,  there  is  no 
available  proof  at  all  on  this  point,  not- 
withstanding the  confidence  with  which 
the  assertion  has  been  made,  and  its 
wide  acceptance. 

This  study  of  the  kinship  of  Jesus 
with  the  apostles  brings  up  another 
question  which  must  receive  due  atten- 
tion, because  it  is  vital  in  the  main  issue. 
The  Apostle  Paul,  in  speaking  of  his 
early  association  with  the  apostles  after 
his  conversion,  says:  *'Then,  after  three 
years,  I  went  up  to  Jerusalem  to  see 
Peter,  and  abode  with  him  fifteen  days. 
But  other  of  the  apostles  saw  I  none, 
save  James,  the  Lord's  brother.'*  (Gal. 
i,  18, 19.)  What  James  was  this?  Why 
was   he    called   ''the    Lord's   brother?" 


94  3fARV  OF  NAZARETH. 

The  position  of  those  who  deny  that  the 
Lord  had  any  brother  is  well  understood, 
but  must  be  stated  again.  It  is,  that 
this  James  was  *' James  the  Less,"  one 
of  the  twelve,  who  was  the  son  of  Al- 
pheus,  and  whose  mother  was  Mary,  the 
wife  of  Cleopas,  the  alleged  sister  to 
Mary,  the  mother  of  Jesus ;  and  that  be- 
ing a  cousin  to  Jesus,  he  was  called  his 
brother,  in  a  sort  of  loose  or  general  use 
of  the  word.  Everything  in  this  view 
of  the  case  hinges  on  the  unproved  as- 
sum.ption  that  these  two  Marys  were 
sisters.  Whether  there  was  a  third 
James,  who  became  an  apostle,  as  did 
Paul  and  Barnabas  and  others,  who  were 
not  of  the  twelve,  is  also  involved  in 
this  inquiry.  If  the  two  Marys  were 
not  sisters,  the  children  of  *'the  other 
Mary"  were  not  cousins  to  Jesus — not 
on  his  mother's  side,  at  least — and  there- 
fore James  the  Less  could  not  have  been 


MARV,  AND  ''THE  OTHER  MARV."      95 

called  the  "Lord's  brother'^  on  the 
ground  alleged,  meaning  not  brother, 
but  cousin.  Thus  it  appears  that  so 
much  depends  on  proving  the  extraor- 
dinary proposition  that  two  sisters  in  the 
same  family  were  named  Mary,  that  one 
might  properly  expect  the  proof  to  be  as 
clear  as  the  sun  in  a  cloudless  sky;  but, 
instead,  it  does  not  amount  to  proof  at 
all,  being  only  an  improper  reading  or 
punctuation  of  a  sentence  in  a  single 
verse. 

The  passage  which  means  so  much  in 
this  discussion  is  John  xix,  25:  "Now 
there  stood  by  the  cross  of  Jesus,  his 
mother,  and  his  mother's  sister,  Mary 
the  wife  of  Cleopas,  and  Mary  Mag- 
dalene." The  meaning  of  this  verse 
very  largely  depends  on  the  tone  and 
punctuation.  It  can  be  read  so  as  to 
favor  the  hypothesis  which  makes  the 
two  Marys  sisters  j  but  that  is  evidently 


96  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

not  the  true  meaning.  The  question  is, 
How  many  persons,  besides  the  mother 
of  Jesus,  were  designated  as  standing  by 
the  cross?  If  only  two,  then  one  of 
them  was  his  mother's  sister,  and  that 
one  was  named  Mary,  the  wife  of 
Cleopas.  But  if  there  were  three 
women  designated,  then  *'his  mother's 
sister"  w^as  not  named  by  John,  and  was 
not  the  wife  of  Cleopas.  It  is  easy  to 
read  the  passage  so  as  to  indicate  the 
presence  of  three  in  addition  to  *'his 
mother,"  and  thus  bring  it  into  harmony 
with  the  statements  of  the  other  evan- 
gelists on  the  same  point,  who  clearly 
mention  three.  Let  it  be  read  with  a 
different  punctuation,  so  as  to  bring  out 
the  sense:  "Now  there  stood  by  the 
cross  of  Jesus,  his  mother  and  his 
mother's  sister;  Mary,  the  wife  of  Cle- 
opas, and  Mary  Magdalene."  Since 
punctuation  is  not  of  divine  authority, 


MARY,  AND  ''THE  OTHER  MARY.         97 

that  is  best  which  best  gives  the  sense 
of  the  writer.  The  two  sisters  are  prop- 
erly joined  in  one  member  of  the  sen- 
tence. Then  the  third  one  of  the  group 
is  ''  Mary,  the  wife  of  Cleopas."  The 
occurrence  of  the  semi-colon  at  once  dis- 
tinguishes the  persons  as  not  the  same, 
and  supersedes  the  conjunction  "and,'* 
which  might  have  been  used  without 
altering  the  sense.  The  conjunction  be- 
tween the  words  "sister^'  and  "Mary" 
would  certainly  have  necessitated  the 
meaning  here  contended  for;  and  yet  it 
was  not  necessary  to  express  that  mean- 
ing, because  the  person  named  after 
"  sister  "  was  not  the  last  one  named  in 
the  list.  It  is  common  usage,  and  good 
usage  both  in  Greek  and  English,  to 
omit  the  conjunction  till  the  last  name 
in  a  list  is  reached,  or  till  the  beginning 
of  the  last  member  of  a  compound  sen- 
tence. Peter,  James,  and  John  is  the 
7 


98  MAJ?V  OF  NAZARETH. 

common  form.  But  where  two  are  re- 
lated, or  more  intimately  grouped  than 
others,  it  is  good  form  to  join  them  in 
one  expression,  as  **  his  mother  and  his 
mother's  sister;"  and,  while  the  semi- 
colon here  would  better  bring  out  the 
sense,  neither  its  absence,  nor  the  ab- 
sence of  the  conjunction  *^  and,'*  binds  us 
to  accept  a  meaning  which  is  so  unusual 
and  extraordinary  as  that  sought  to  be 
put  upon  this  verse.  Learned  essays 
have  been  written  to  show  that  the  ab- 
sence of  the  *'and''  {kai)  in  this  place 
proves  the  strange  assumption  not 
hinted  at  elsewhere  in  all  the  Scriptures, 
that  the  two  Marys  w^ere  sisters,  and 
that  only  two  women  were  designated 
by  John  as  standing  with  the  mother  of 
Jesus  at  his  cross.  But  all  the  other 
evangelists  designate  three,  while  the 
best  reading  of  this  passage,  either  with 
or     without    the     better     punctuation, 


MARY,  AND  ''THE  OTHER  MARY.''      99 

clearly  indicates  three.  His  mother's 
sister,  who  was  not  named,  was  the  first ; 
Mary,  the  wife  of  Cleopas,  the  second; 
and  Mary  Magdalene  was  the  third. 

In  confirmation  of  this  reading,  we 
shall  find  out  that  these  three  were  pres- 
ent ;  and  we  shall  also  find  the  name  of 
this  sister  to  the  mother  of  Jesus,  whom 
this  evangelist  did  not  name;  and  we 
shall  find,  in  addition,  the  reason  why 
John  did  not  give  her  name ;  and  also 
that  she  was  John's  own  mother.  If  all 
this  be  shown,  then,  of  course,  the  other 
interpretation  which  makes  the  two 
Marys  sisters  fails  of  proof,  and  goes 
down  with  all  the  vast  superstructure  of 
Mariolatry  and  false  interpretations  built 
upon  it.  A  most  marvelous  instance  is 
this  of  almost  infinite  results  following  a 
mistaken  reading  of  a  single  verse — nay, 
a  single  sentence  in  a  single  verse ! 

The  record  by  the  other  evangelists 


lOO  MAJ^y  OF  NAZARETH. 

settles  the  question  as  to  the  number  of 
women  present — that  is,  the  number  of 
those  designated,  and,  inferentially,  as  to 
the  one  who  was  "  sister  '*  to  the  mother 
of  Jesus.  We  read,  Matthew  xxvii,  55, 
56 :  "  And  many  women  were  there  be- 
holding afar  off,  which  followed  Jesus 
from  Galilee,  ministering  unto  him : 
among  which  was  Mary  Magdalene,  and 
Mary  the  mother  of  James  and  Joses, 
and  the  mother  of  Zebedee's  children.'* 
Here  are  the  three  who  were  sufficiently 
prominent  or  important  to  be  designated 
particularly,  as  those  who  came  with 
Jesus  from  Galilee,  ministering  unto 
him.  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that 
Matthew  and  John  designated  the  same 
three  who  were  with  the  mother  of  Jesus, 
although  Matthew  does  not  mention  her 
as  present  at  all.  Of  these  three,  two 
are  the  same  that  John  named,  and  the 
third   Is  the  one  whom  John   did   not 


MARY,  AND  ''THE  OTHER  MARY^     lOI 

name,  but  mentioned  as  sister  to  Mary, 
the  mother  of  Jesus.  She  is  not  named 
here,  but  is  identified  as  "  the  mother  of 
Zebedee's  children."  She  is,  therefore, 
the  mother  of  James  and  John.  Now, 
by  turning  to  Mark  xv,  40,  41,  we  find 
the  same  group  recognized  and  desig- 
nated as  follows :  **  There  were  also 
women  looking  on  afar  off:  among 
whom  was  Mary  Magdalene,  and  Mary 
the  mother  of  James  the  Less  and  of  Jo- 
ses,  and  Salome ;  who  also,  when  he  was 
in  Galilee,  followed  him,  and  ministered 
unto  him;  and  many  other  women 
which  came  up  with  him  unto  Jerusa- 
lem." All  the  three  which  are  honored 
with  such  particular  mention  were  with 
him  in  Galilee,  and  followed  him,  and 
ministered  unto  him,  a  service  in  which 
Salome  was  conspicuous.  Mary  Mag- 
dalene, and  "the  other  Mary,"  the 
mother  of  James    the    Less,  are    never 


I02  3IARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

omitted.  The  third  of  this  select  group 
is  named  by  Mark,  but  otherwise  desig- 
nated by  Matthew  and  John.  Matthew 
calls  her  *'  the  mother  of  Zebedee's  chil- 
dren ;''  John  speaks  of  her  as  the  sister 
of  the  mother  of  Jesus  —  "his  mother 
and  his  mother's  sister;"  but  here  in 
Mark  she  is  *'  Salome."  Collating  all 
these,  we  designate  her  at  once  as  Sa- 
lome, sister  to  Mary  the  mother  of  Jesus, 
wife  of  Zebedee,  and  the  mother  of 
James  and  John.  She  was  with  Jesus 
in  Galilee,  and  ministered  unto  him, 
probably  furnishing  him  with  a  home 
much  of  the  time  he  spent  in  Caper- 
naum and  the  vicinity  of  the  lake,  be- 
fore his  mother  moved  from  Nazareth, 
and  possibly  after  she  and  her  other  chil- 
dren came  to  Capernaum  to  live.  She 
certainly  came  with  him  from  Galilee 
up  to  Jerusalem ;  for  it  was  on  this 
journey  that  she  brought  her  two  sons 


MARY,  AND  ''THE  OTHER  JlfARV.''    103 

to  Jesus,  and  requested  him  to  place 
them,  one  on  his  right  hand  and  the 
other  on  his  left  hand,  when  he  should 
come  into  his  kingdom.  A  very  strange 
and  bold  request,  one  is  ready  to  say, 
and  utterly  presumptuous,  till  we  re- 
member the  relation  she  sustained  to 
Jesus,  as  his  mother's  sister,  and  his 
own  aunt  and  hostess,  and  as  the 
mother  of  two  of  his  most  devoted  and 
most  beloved  disciples,  who  were  with 
her,  and  joined  her  in  the  request. 

John  was  peculiar  about  mentioning 
the  names  of  those  especially  dear  to  him. 
Among  these  were  his  mother  and  the 
mother  of  Jesus.  These  are  not  named 
in  his  Gospel.  His  brother  James  he 
does  not  name.  All  these  are  recognized 
in  his  writings,  so  as  to  be  identified,  but 
not  by  name.  It  was  so  with  his  own 
name.  When  he  spoke  of  himself,  it 
was  ''that  other  disciple,"  or  the  "disci- 


I04  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

pie  whom  Jesus  loved,"  or  *'the  disciple 
which  testifieth  of  these  things."  When 
he  spoke  of  his  brother  and  himself, 
he  said,  ''the  sons  of  Zebedee."  When 
he  spoke  of  Mary,  the  mother  of  Jesus, 
the  name  was  omitted,  and  it  w^as  "the 
mother  of  Jesus,"  or  *'his  mother."  So 
when  he  would  identify  the  two  women 
at  the  cross  of  Jesus  for  whom  he  felt 
the  tenderest  sympathy  and  the  deepest 
veneration,  he  wrote,  *'His  mother  and 
his  mother's  sister."  There  must  have 
been  in  his  nature  some  peculiar  sensi- 
tiveness on  this  subject,  perhaps  a  feel- 
ing akin  to  that  which  restrained  a  de- 
vout Israelite  from  pronouncing  the 
name  of  the  Deity  without  uncovering 
his  head.  Now,  in  view  of  this  singu- 
larity in  John's  character,  it  appears  in 
exact  keeping  with  his  method,  to  indi- 
cate the  presence  of  these  two  sisters  in 
this  way,  without  naming  either,  or  in- 


MARY,  AND  ''THE  OTHER  AfARV,''    105 

timating  the  relation  of  either  to  him- 
self. His  own  mother,  *'the  mother  of 
Zebedee's  children,'*  was  one  of  the 
most  prominent  of  the  noted  women 
who  ministered  to  Jesus  in  Galilee,  and 
who  came  up  to  the  feast,  and  stood  by 
the  cross.  She  was  conspicuous  in 
every  good  work,  and  was  not  absent 
when  the  supreme  trial  came.  True  to 
her  faith,  and  true  to  her  instincts  of 
sisterhood,  she  was  with  the  mother 
of  Jesus  in  this  darkest  hour,  and  with 
her  till  after  the  Sabbath  was  past,  and 
with  those  who  brought  the  glad  news 
of  the  resurrection  on  the  morning  of 
the  first  day  of  the  week. 

John  named  the  other  women  without 
hesitation.  He  said,  *'Mary  the  wife 
of  Cleopas;'*  that  is,  literally,  *'Mary 
of  Cleopas,"  the  word  *'wife"  being 
supplied,  where  the  word  "daughter" 
might  have  been  inserted;  or,  if  Klopas 


I06  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

were  a  place,  and  not  a  person,  it  would 
be  Mary  of  Klopas^  as  Mary  Magdalene 
is  Mary  of  Magdala.  But  no  such  place 
is  known,  and  Clopas,  or  Cleopas,  is  the 
name  of  a  person,  and  the  indication  of 
this  Mary  as  his  wife  is  probably  cor- 
rect. It  seems  to  have  been  another 
name  for  Alpheus,  it  being  not  unusual 
for  one  to  be  known  by  two  names,  as 
Matthew  was  also  Levi;  and  as  Bar- 
tholomew was  also  Nathanael;  and  as 
Simon  was  called  Cephas;  and  as  Leb- 
beus  was  Thaddeus,  and  possibly  Judas. 
When  Luke  made  reference  to  the 
women  standing  at  the  cross,  he  did  it 
in  a  more  general  way.  He  gave  no 
names,  simply  saying:  *^And  all  his  ac- 
quaintance, and  the  women  that  fol- 
lowed him  from  Galilee,  stood  afar  off, 
beholding  these  things.'*  But  further 
along  in  the  story,  when  he  describes 
the  fidelity  of  those  who  remained  till 


iMARV,  AND  ''THE  OTHER  MARV."    1 07 

after  the  burial,  and  prepared  for  the 
embalming,  he  gives  the  names  of  the 
women  who  reported  the  resurrection, 
and  among  them  one  who  was  not  of 
the  distinguished  group  that  stood  afar 
off,  witnessing  the  crucifixion.  She  may 
have  been  present,  as  were  many  others, 
but  she  was  not  spoken  of  by  name,  or  in 
any  way  designated  till  after  the  resurrec- 
tion. She  can  not  therefore  be  thought 
of  as  being  the  unnamed  *' sister"  to  the 
mother  of  Jesus;  nor  yet  as  the  *' mother 
of  Zebedee's  children.'^  The  identifica- 
tion of  that  one  already  made  can  not  be 
impeached.  Luke  says:  *'It  was  Mary 
Magdalene,  and  Joanna,  and  Mary  the 
mother  of  James,  and  other  women  that 
were  with  them,  which  told  these  things 
unto  the  apostles.'*  (Luke  xxiv,  lo.) 
Joanna  was  undoubtedly  a  person  of 
some  importance,  worthy  of  this  men- 
tion    in     this     company    of   excellent 


I08  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

women,  whose  names  are  enshrined  for- 
ever in  the  hearts  of  believers,  as  well 
as  written  in  the  imperishable  records 
of  inspiration.  If  unknown  in  all  other 
relations,  this  one  recognition  would 
place  her  among  the  honorable  women 
whose  devotion  led  them  early  to  the 
forsaken  tomb,  and  brought  them  visions 
of  angels,  and  made  them  the  first  wit- 
nesses of  the  resurrection  of  the  Son  of 
God.  She  was,  by  implication,  one  of 
those  of  whom  this  evangelist  says :  *'And 
the  women  also,  which  came  with  him 
from  Galilee,  followed  after,  and  beheld 
the  sepulcher,  and  how  his  body  was 
laid.  And  they  returned,  and  prepared 
spices  and  ointments;  and  rested  the 
Sabbath  day  according  to  the  command- 
ment." These  same  women,  after  the 
Sabbath,  while  it  was  yet  twilight,  on 
the  morning  of  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  came    to   the  sepulcher,  to  carry 


MARY,  AND  ''THE  OTHER  MARVy    109 

out  their  purpose  of  embalming  the 
body,  when,  to  their  great  astonishment, 
they  found  the  stone  rolled  away,  and 
the  sepulcher  empty.  Their  distress  at 
this  discovery  was  at  first  agonizing,  but 
it  lasted  only  for  a  moment;  for  just 
then  appeared  angels  from  heaven,  and 
announced  to  them  the  most  stupendous 
fact  in  the  history  of  Redemption. 
"He  is  not  here;  for  he  is  risen,  as  he 
said.'*  Then  immediately  one  of  the 
angels,  to  quiet  the  alarm  of  the  women, 
that  they  might  assure  themselves  of 
the  reality  of  the  wonderful  things  tak- 
ing place  before  their  eyes,  tenderly 
said  to  them:  "Come,  see  the  place 
where  the  Lord  lay.'*  He  then  bade 
them  go  and  tell  his  disciples  that  He 
who  was  crucified  was  risen.  Luke 
says  it  was  "Mary  Magdalene,  and  Jo- 
anna, and  Mary  the  mother  of  James, 
and  other  women  that  were  with  them. 


no  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

whicli  told  these  things  unto  the  apos- 
tles." Mark  puts  John's  mother,  Sa- 
lome, among  them:  *'And  when  the 
Sabbath  was  past,  Mary  Magdalene, 
Mary  the  mother  of  James,  and  Salome, 
had  bought  sweet  spices,  that  they 
might  come  and  anoint  him.  And  very 
early  in  the  morning,  the  first  day  of 
the  week,  they  came  unto  the  sepulcher 
at  the  rising  of  the  sun.'*  John  does 
not  include  his  mother  in  the  list  of 
these  early  visitors,  but  she  was  there, 
as  she  was  never  behind  in  the  ministry 
of  love.  Mary  the  mother  of  Jesus  was 
not  there.  She  remained  alone  in  her 
silent  grief,  or  perhaps  with  her  other 
sons,  whose  fidelity  to  her  never  failed, 
while  kindred  and  friends  from  Galilee 
attended  to  the  kindly  offices  for  the 
dead.  But  here  we  find  the  name  of 
this  other  woman,  Joanna. 

Who,  then,  was  Joanna?     May  it  not 


MAJ^ V,  AND  * '  THE  OTHER  MAR F. "     III 

be,  after  all,  that  this  is  the  unnamed 
sister  to  the  mother  of  Jesus,  who  stood 
with  her  at  the  cross?  We  find  her 
name  elsewhere  among  those  who  had 
received  healing  at  the  hand  of  Jesus. 
*'And  it  came  to  pass  afterward,  that  he 
went  throughout  every  city  and  village, 
preaching  and  showing  the  glad  tidings 
of  the  kingdom  of  God;  and  the  twelve 
were  with  him.  And  certain  women 
which  had  been  healed  of  evil  spirits 
and  infirmities,  Mary  called  Magdalene, 
out  of  whom  went  seven  devils,  and 
Joanna  the  wife  of  Chuza,  Herod's 
steward,  and  Susanna,  and  many  others, 
which  ministered  to  him  of  their  sub- 
stance." (lyuke  viii,  1-3.)  Joanna  is 
thus  identified.  She  was  the  wife  of 
Chuza,  Herod's  steward.  Her  devotion 
to  Jesus  was  like  that  of  Mary  Magda- 
lene, a  tribute  of  gratitude  for  personal 
healing.     She  was  not   mentioned   as 


112  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

Standing  at  the  cross,  but  she  was  prob- 
ably there  as  one  of  the  other  women. 
She  was  not  the  unnamed  sister,  to 
whom  John  referred.  (John  xix,  25.) 
That  was  Salome,  "the  mother  of 
Zebedee's  children."  Thus  every  line 
of  investigation  brings  us  back  to  the 
inevitable  conclusion  that  three  women 
stood  with  the  mother  of  Jesus  at  his 
cross,  and  that  these  three  were  Salome, 
his  mother's  sister;  Mary  the  wife  of  Cle- 
opas;  and  Mary  Magdalene.  This  fact 
is  far-reaching  in  this  discussion,  and 
tells  with  tremendous  power  against  the 
unnatural  supposition  that  Mary  the 
wife  of  Cleopas,  was  the  sister  of  Mary 
the  mother  of  Jesus.  It  also  applies 
with  equal  decisiveness  against  the 
claim  set  up  that  James  the  Less,  was 
the  apostle  whom  Paul  designated  as 
"James  the  I^ord's  brother." 


HIS  BRETHREN— CONJECTURES. 

'^N  order  to  do  full  justice  to  the  hy- 
ffj  pothesis  which  denies  to  Jesus  any 
brother,  and  to  his  mother  any  other 
child  than  her  *' first-born  son,'^  we  must 
look  at  the  several  conjectures  put  forth 
to  give  it  the  appearance  of  plausibility. 
If  the  hypothesis  be  sustained,  it  must, 
in  some  reasonable  way,  account  for  all 
the  facts  known  to  exist  in  connection 
with  this  family  in  Nazareth. 

The  leading  fact,  which  is  palpable 
and  indisputable,  is,  that  there  was  a 
family  of  children  living  in  the  house 
Y/ith  Joseph  and  Mar}^,  as  if  they  be- 
longed there,  and  known  to  the  neigh- 
bors as  their  own.     Unless  this  can  be 

explained  in  harmony  with  the  supposed 
^     8  113 


114  3IARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

non-parentage  of  this  husband  and  wife, 
the  hypothesis  falls  to  the  ground  for 
want  of  support.  Hence  the  ingenuity 
of  believers  in  the  perpetual  virginity 
has  been  taxed  to  the  utmost  to  give  a 
plausible  solution  of  the  problem.  The 
result  is,  that  the  ground  is  taken  that 
these  children  were  all  the  children  of 
another  Mary,  who,  upon  the  slender 
ground  already  considered,  is  alleged  to 
have  been  the  sister  of  Mary  the  wife  of 
Joseph,  making  her  children  cousins  to 
Jesus,  and  on  that  account  called  his 
brethren.  It  is  also  assumed,  on  this 
behalf,  that  Joseph  was  dead,  and  that 
Cleopas,  the  husband  of  "the  other 
Mary,"  was  dead;  and  that  these  two 
widowed  sisters,  both  named  Mary,  were 
living  together  in  one  house,  as  one  fam- 
ily, and  that  the  neighbors  who  knew 
Jesus,  looked  upon  the  other  children  in 
this  household  as  his  brothers  and  sis- 


HIS  BRETHREN— CONJECTURES.      1 1 5 

ters,  when,  in  fact,  they  were  only  his 
cousins. 

The   ingenuity  of   this   conjecture  is 
not  questioned;    but  its  foundation  has 
already  been   removed   in   the  showing 
that   there   is  not  the   least   shadow  of 
reason    for    believing    that    these    two 
Marys   were   sisters,  or    ever    lived   to- 
gether as  one  family.     The  children  of 
this  family  were  not  only  supposed  by 
the  neighbors  to  be   the   brethren   and 
sisters  of  Jesus,  but  the  *' brethren"  are 
recognized  by  the  sacred  writers  them- 
selves   as    "his    brethren,"    again    and 
again,  and  that  through  all  his  ministry 
and  till   after   the   crucifixion    and   the 
Pentecost.     Moreover,  they  are   spoken 
of  as   "his  brethren"   in  his   presence, 
and  without  any  denial  or  modification 
on  his   part.      Further  than   this   it  is 
scarcely  necessary  to   go;    and   yet,  in 
order  that  the  entire  lack  of  trustworthi- 


1 1 6  MA R  Y  OF  NAZA RETH. 

ness  in  this  conjecture  may  appear,  it 
will  be  shown  that'  facts  do  not  admit 
of  the  supposition  that  either  one  of 
these  Marys  was  a  widow  at  the  time 
these  children  were  living  in  the  family 
and  passing  in  the  community  as  the 
brothers  and  sisters  of  Jesus.  It  is  a 
sort  of  common  tradition  that  Joseph 
died  before  Jesus  began  his  public  life, 
but  there  is  no  proof  of  it;  and  it  is 
simply  a  part  of  the  conjecture  which 
seems  necessary  to  the  dogma  involved, 
and  which  is  so  essential  to  Roman 
Catholicism  —  the  Mariolatry  of  that 
Church  resting  upon  it. 

There  is  not  the  least  particle  of  proof 
that  either  Joseph  or  Cleopas  was  dead. 
The  occurrences  which  bring  these  chil- 
dren into  view  belong  to  the  earlier  part 
of  the  public  ministry  of  Jesus.  He  had 
been  baptized;  he  had  been  through  the 
temptation  in  the  mountain  or  wilder- 


HIS  BRETHREN— CONJECTURES.       1 1 7 

ness;  and  had  returned  to  Nazareth, 
where  he  preached  in  the  synagogue, 
and  astonished  the  people,  so  that  they 
said:  "Is  not  this  the  carpenter's  son? 
is  not  his  mother  called  Mary?  and  his 
brethren,  James,  and  Joses,  and  Simon, 
and  Judas?  And  his  sisters,  are  they 
not  all  with  us?  Whence,  then,  hath 
this  man  all  these  things?"  This  famil- 
iar way  of  alluding  to  Joseph  as  "the 
carpenter,"  who  was  well  known,  and 
whose  sons  and  daughters  were  at  home, 
is  not  the  way  they  would  have  spoken 
if  "the  carpenter"  had  been  dead.  The 
implication  is  clear  that  the  \vhole  fam- 
ily lived  there,  so  as  to  be  known  by 
name.  At  a  later  period  in  his  ministry, 
when  Jesus  had  come  over  to  Capernaum 
from  beyond  the  lake,  and,  in  addressing 
the  people,  had  spoken  of  himself  as 
"the  bread  of  life,"  and  as  "the  bread 
which  cometh  down  from  heaven,"  "the 


Il8  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

Jews  murmured  at  him,  because  he  said, 
I  am  the  bread  which  came  down  from 
heaven.  And  they  said,  Is  not  this 
Jesus,  the  son  of  Joseph,  whose  father 
and  mother  we  know?  how  is  it  then 
that  he  saith,  I  came  down  from  heaven?'^ 
It  is  unreasonable  to  imagine  the  people 
thus  speaking  if  his  **  father  and  mother" 
were  not  both  living.  His  mother  was, 
we  know,  and  the  two  are  so  associated 
in  the  minds  of  those  who  spoke  of  them 
as  to  imply  that  they  were  together.  It 
is  not  at  all  likely  that  they  would  have 
spoken  of  Joseph  in  this  familiar  way  if 
he  had  been  dead.  They  did  not  refer 
to  him  as  one  dead,  or  as  having  once 
been  known  to  them,  but  as  still  living, 
"whose  father  and  mother  we  know." 
In  this  way  people  speak  of  their  ac- 
quaintances who  are  living.  The  whole 
tenor  of  the  Scriptures  is  against  the 
supposition  that  Joseph  was  dead  at  the 


HIS  BRETHREN— CONJECTURES.      1 19 

time  James  and  Joses  and  Simon  and 
Judas  were  at  home  in  Nazareth,  known 
as  the  brethren  of  Jesus,  and  as  the 
children  of  Joseph  and  Mary.  We  may 
safely  set  this  conjecture  aside,  not 
merely  as  not  proven,  but  as  proven 
false.  It  is  not  known  when  Joseph 
died;  but  evidently  it  was  not  before  the 
time  when  the  murmuring  Jews  said: 
*'  His  father  and  mother  we  know."  The 
probability  is  that  Joseph  lived  till  near 
the  close  of  the  public  ministry  of  Christ* 
The  fact  that  he  was  not  recognized  as 
being  present  at  the  crucifixion,  and  that 
after  that  the  mother  of  Jesus  v/as  put 
under  the  care  of  her  nephew  John,  who 
took  her  to  '^his  own  home,"  to  live  with 
his  mother,  who  was  her  own  sister,  gives 
color  to  the  supposition  that  her  husband 
was  dead  at  that  time.  This  presump- 
tion of  her  widowhood  at  the  time  of  the 
crucifixion   proves  nothing  favorable  to 


I20  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

the  conjecture  that  she  had  been  a  widow 
for  a  long  time,  and  had  been  living  with 
a  sister  whose  .children  passed  for  her 
own.  If  that  had  been  the  case,  there 
appears  no  particular  reason  for  break- 
ing up  so  delightful  an  arrangement  by- 
sending  her  to  live  elsewhere.  But  if 
her  husband  had  recently  died;  and  if 
her  home  in  Nazareth  had  been  broken 
up  but  a  short  time;  and  if  she  had 
lately  gone  to  Capernaum  to  reside ;  and 
if  "the  mother  of  Zebedee's  children" 
was  really  her  sister,  who  did  the  sister's 
part  by  standing  with  her  at  the  cross ; 
and  seeing  that  her  own  sons  were  not 
yet  disciples,  and  were  not  settled  for 
living  or  for  business, — the  arrangement 
for  her  was  natural,  and  can  be  easily 
understood.  The  mother  of  James  and 
John  was  evidently  in  good  circum- 
stances. Zebedee  was  possibly  still 
alive.     The  home  was  one  where  Jesus 


HIS  BRETHREN— CONJECTURES.      121 

and  his  niotlier  were  not  strangers,  and 
wliere  the  kindly  attentions  of  the  "be- 
loved disciple^'  would  come  to  her  as  a 
balm  to  her  wounded  spirit.  In  all 
probability,  the  commendation  of  Jesus 
to  his  mother  and  John,  to  regard  each 
other  with  motherly  and  filial  love,  did 
not  change  the  home  which  had  previ- 
ously opened  to  her;  but  sanctioned  and 
sanctified  an  order  of  things  which  was 
now  to  become  permanent,  and  needed 
only  his  blessing. 

The  conjecture  before  us  makes  '*the 
other  Mary"  a  widow  also,  living  in 
Nazareth  with  the  mother  of  Jesus, 
where  her  children  were  taken  to  be  the 
brothers  and  sisters  of  Jesus.  What 
ground  is  there  for  supposing  she  was  a 
widow?  Not  the  least  in  the  world.  It 
is  gratuitous  guess-work,  pure  and  sim- 
ple. Moreover,  it  is  highly  improbable. 
She  is  not  at  any  time  spoken  of  as  a 


122  MAI^y  OJ^  JVAZA RETH. 

widow,  but  always  as  a  wife.  She  is  the 
wife  of  Cleopas.  If  Cleopas  was  living 
when  she  was  mentioned  as  being  his 
wife,  she  was  identified  at  once.  The 
question  as  to  whether  Cleopas  and 
Alpheus  are  identical,  is  not  involved  at 
this  point,  but  simply  the  question  as  to 
whether  Mary,  the  mother  of  James  the 
Less,  was  the  wife,  or  the  widow,  of  Cle- 
opas. She  is  called  his  wife ;  but  is  there 
any  ground  for  believing  him  dead? 
There  certainly  is  not;  while  all  refer- 
ences to  him,  and  to  Mary  his  wife, 
clearly  imply  that  he  was  living.  This 
ought  to  be  sufficient  to  set  aside  a  base- 
less conjecture;  but,  then,  there  is  proof 
on  the  other  side.  Cleopas  was  living, 
and  he  was  a  disciple,  probably  known 
to  all  the  company  of  the  disciples  gath- 
ered at  Jerusalem ;  a  witness  of  the  cruci- 
fixion, and  one  to  whom  Jesus  revealed 
himself  after  his  resurrection.     He  was 


HIS  BRETHREN— CONJECTURES.      1 23 

one  of  the  two  disciples  walking  towards 
Bmmaus,  when  the  risen  Christ  came  to 
them,  and  walked  and  talked  with  them, 
and  then  made  himself  known  to  them. 
We  read,  Luke  xxiv,  13-18:  ''And,  be- 
hold, two  of  them  went  that  same  day 
to  a  village  called  Bmmaus,  which  was 
from  Jerusalem  about  threescore  fur- 
longs. And  they  talked  together  of  all 
these  things  which  had  happened.  And 
it  came  to, pass  that,  while  they  com- 
muned together  and  reasoned,  Jesus 
himself  drew  near,  and  went  with  them. 
But  their  eyes  were  holden,  that  they 
should  not  know  him.  And  he  said 
unto  them,  What  manner  of  communi- 
cations are  these  that  ye  have  one  to 
another,  as  ye  walk,  and  are  sad?  And 
the  one  of  them  whose  name  was  Cle- 
opas,  answering,  said  unto  him.  Art  thou 
only  a  stranger  in  Jerusalem,  and  hast 
not  known   the   things  which  are  come 


124  MARY  OF  NAZARETH, 

to  pass  there  in  these  days?"  Here  is  a 
disciple  named  Cleopas,  and  he  is  evi- 
dently one  of  the  "acquaintances"  who 
lingered  about  the  cross  till  all  was  over, 
and  then  remained  with  the  sorrowing 
company  till  the  Sabbath  was  past.  He 
identified  himself  with  those  most  inti- 
mately concerned,  when  he  said:  "Yea, 
and  certain  women  also  of  our  com- 
pany made  us  astonished,  which  were 
early  at  the  sepulcher;  and  when  they 
found  not  his  body,  they  came,  saying 
that  they  had  also  seen  a  vision  of  an- 
gels, which  said  that  he  was  alive.  And 
certain  of  them  which  were  with  us 
went  to  the  sepulcher,  and  found  it  even 
so  as  the  women  had  said."  (Luke 
xxiv,  22-24.)  ^^^^  women  who  went 
first  to  the  sepulcher  were  "of  our  com- 
pany;" they  also  "made  us  astonished;" 
and,  then,  "certain  of  them  which  were 
with  us  went  to  the  sepulcher."     Surely, 


HIS  BRETHREN— CONJECTURES.      1 25 

then,  this  disciple  was  with  the  apostles, 
and  with  the  women,  and  there  is  no 
reason  for  doubting  that  he  was  the 
Cleopas  who  was  the  husband  of  "the 
other  Mary,"  one  of  the  women  last  at 
the  cross  and  first  at  the  sepulcher;  and 
this  Mary  was  the  mother  of  James  the 
Less,  one  of  the  twelve.  It  is  therefore 
impossible  that  she  should  have  been  a 
widow,  living  in  Nazareth  with  the 
mother  of  Jesus,  and  her  children  pass- 
ing as  the  brethren  of  Jesus.  At  that 
very  time  two  of  her  children  were 
apostles,  traveling  about  with  Jesus  in 
the  active  pursuit  of  his  great  mission. 
Thus  it  appears  that  this  conjecture  of 
the  widowhood  of  these  two  Marys  is 
contradicted  by  facts  too  formidable  to 
be  set  aside  without  positive  testimony, 
which  is  wholly  lacking  and  impossible. 
Commentators  follow  one  another  in 
the  hasty  conclusion  that  this  Cleopas, 


126  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

wliom  Jesus  met  on  the  way  to  Em- 
maus,  is  not  the  same  as  the  husband  of 
Mary.  There  is  a  slight  difference  in 
the  orthography  of  the  name  in  different 
places ;  but,  unless  the  derivation  is 
proven  to  be  entirely  different,  this  fact 
proves  nothing.  Whether  written  Clo- 
pas,  Cleopas,  or  Cleophas,  there  is  not 
the  shadow  of  argument  against  the 
identity  of  the  person  in  the  spelling, 
since  very  many  proper  names  in  the 
Gospels  are  differently  spelled.  Even 
Simon  is  sometimes  Simeon.  (Acts  xv, 
14.)  No  other  Cleopas  than  the  husband 
of  Mary  is  known  to  have  been  so  in- 
timately related  to  the  disciples  as  this 
man  is  shown  to  have  been ;  and  if  he 
were  another,  the  fact  would  have  been 
intimated  in  some  way. 

There  is  still  another  conjecture  to  be 
considered.  Some  who  concede  that 
there  were  two  families  with  sons  of  the 


HIS  BRETHREN— CONJECTURES.      1 2  7 

same  names,  assume  that  those  passing 
as  the  brothers  of  Jesus  were  the  sons 
of  Joseph  by  a  former  wife,  and  were, 
therefore,  his  stepbrothers,  and  popu- 
larly known  as  his  brethren  in  the  com- 
munity. The  age  of  this  conjecture, 
though  it  be  traced  to  the  second  cen- 
tury, gives  it  no  authority.  While  it  is 
more  plausible  than  is  the  assumption 
that  the  two  Marys  were  sisters,  it  is 
without  the  semblance  of  truth,  having 
no  recognition  in  the  Scriptures.  No 
one  knows  whether  Joseph  was  a  wid- 
ower or  not,  whether  he  was  an  elderly 
man  or  quite  young,  when  he  married 
Mary.  The  work  of  artists  in  repre- 
senting him  as  an  old  man  is  purely 
imaginary.  It  is  like  that  of  picturing 
the  mother  of  Zebedee's  children  as  a 
beautiful  young  woman,  with  two  little 
boys  at  her  knees,  asking  Jesus  to  place 
one  of  them  at  his  ris:ht  hand  and  one 


128  MAJ^r  OF  NAZARETH. 

Sit  his  left,  in  his  kingdom ;  when,  in 
fact,  this  request  was  made  in  behalf  of 
two  apostles,  of  full  stature  and  mature 
life.  If  Joseph  had  been  married  pre- 
viously, and  had  these  four  sons  and 
several  daughters,  even  the  youngest  of 
them  would  have  been  older  than  Mary's 
"first-born  son,'*  and  some  of  them  con- 
siderably older ;  and  as  Jesus  was  thirty 
when  he  began  his  ministry,  some  of 
them  would  have  been  settled  in  fam- 
ilies of  their  own,  and  would  not  have 
been  living  with  their  stepmother,  and 
accompanying  her  from  place  to  place 
as  her  children,  subject  to  her  will,  while 
Jesus  was  going  about  with  his  disciples 
preaching  the  Kingdom  of  God. 

While  we  may  not  deny  the  possibility 
that  Joseph  was  a  widower,  the  conjec- 
ture is  devoid  of  important  elements  of 
probability.  It  is  in  the  highest  degree 
improbable  that  he  had  a, family  of  chil- 


HIS  BRETHREN— CONJECTURES.      1 29 

dren  at  home,  and  left  them  to  care  for 
themselves,  when  he  so  hastily  took 
Mary  and  the  young  child  and  departed 
into  Egypt.  While  they  were  older  than 
the  child  whose  life  he  sought  to  save, 
they  were  not  at  that  time — thirty  years 
before  the  beginning  of  Christ's  min- 
istry— old  enough  to  warrant  the  father 
and  stepmother  in  departing  out  of  the 
country  without  making  provision  for 
their  protection  and  support.  It  is  next 
to  impossible  to  believe  that  any  humane 
father  would  do  such  a  thing,  or  be 
providentially  led  to  do  it.  In  view  of 
all  the  circumstances,  the  supposition 
that  Joseph  had  this  large  family  of 
young  children  before  his  marriage  with 
Mary,  is  so  unreasonable  that  one  may 
safely  say  it  would  never  have  had  any 
credence  in  the  Church  but  for  the  sup- 
posed necessity  of  holding,  at  any  cost  of 
consistency,  to  the  non-parentage  life  of 


130  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

Joseph  and  Mary.  There  is  nothing 
like  blind  devotion  to  Church  traditions 
to  override  reason  and  common  sense. 

This  does  not  exhaust  the  catalogue 
of  conjectures,  which  have  had  more  or 
less  of  patronage  from  age  to  age  in  the 
past,  all  designed  to  furnish  a  mother 
for  the  "brethren"  of  our  Savior,  with- 
out allowing  them  to  be  the  children  of 
Joseph  and  Mary,  which  ought  to  be  the 
most  natural  and  honorable  conclusion 
one  could  reach  from  the  Scripture  nar- 
ratives. A  false  estimate  of  Paul's  com- 
mendation of  celibacy  for  the  period  of 
persecution,  as  an  expediency  in  the 
time  of  the  wonderful  distress  to  which 
the  Church  was  subjected,  has  been  car- 
ried to  such  extremes  that  the  estate  of 
singleness  has  been  exalted  into  a  vir- 
tue, while  matrimony  has  been  dispar- 
aged as  incompatible  with  the  highest 
spirituality.     This  persistent   effort,   in 


HIS  BRETHREN— CONJECTURES.      13I 

one  way  or  another,  to  make  the  breth- 
ren of  Jesus  his  cousins,  has  brought  out 
the  conjecture  that  Joseph  and  Cleopas, 
or  Alpheus,  were  brothers,  and  that 
therefore,  in  the  popular  thought,  the 
children  of  the  latter  were  related  to  the 
son  of  Mary  in  this  roundabout  way, 
which  was  enough  to  justify  the  evan- 
gelists in  calling  them  "his  brethren." 
Some  ancient  writers  believed  this  rela- 
tion existed  between  Joseph  and  Al- 
pheus, We  do  not  know  whether  it  did 
or  not;  but  whether  the  conjecture  be 
true  or  false,  it  is  not  sufficiently  authen- 
ticated to  command  belief;  and,  if  be- 
lieved, it  does  not  account  for  the  as- 
sumed fact  that  the  children  of  Alpheus 
lived  with  Joseph  and  Mary,  passing  for 
their  children,  and  did  not  live  with 
their  own  parents.  The  ingenuity  of 
men  has  not  yet  proved  keen  enough  to 
invent  an  hypothesis  that  will  satisfy  all 


132  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

the  conditions  of  this  problem.  The 
stubborn  fact  remains  that  in  the  house- 
hold of  the  carpenter  of  Nazareth,  there 
were  several  children  living  as  in  the 
home  of  their  parents,  known  to  the 
neighbors  as  the  children  of  Joseph  and 
Mary,  and  definitely  recognized  in  the 
Scriptures  as  the  brothers  and  sisters  of 
Jesus,  and  never  as  his  cousins. 

It  is  known  that  one  of  this  family  was 
named  James,  and  it  has  always  been 
claimed  by  those  who  deny  that  Mary 
had  any  other  child  than  Jesus,  that  this 
James  was  one  of  the  twelve,  James  the 
Less,  the  son  of  Alpheus ;  and  that  this 
particular  James  was  also  the  one  whom 
the  Apostle  Paul  recognized  as  '*  James 
the  Lord's  brother."  Now,  if  this  James 
was  indeed  James  the  Less,  the  son  of 
Alpheus,  he  was  not  at  home  in  Nazareth 
with  the  carpenter  when  Jesus  came 
there  to  preach  in  the  synagogue  ;  when 


HIS  BRETHREN— CONJECTURES.     1 33 

the  neiglibors  referred  to  him  by  name 
as  the  brother  of  Jesus,  and  as  at  home, 
known  to  them  all.    James  the  Less,  the 
son  of  Alpheus,  had  been  called  into  the 
apostolic   family  before   this,   and   was 
with  the  twelve,  spending  his  time  with 
them  traveling  about  the  villages  and 
cities  of  Galilee,  but  most  of  the  time  in 
the  vicinity  of  the  lake  of  Galilee.    How 
could  he  be  at  home  and  abroad  at  once  ? 
How  could  he  be  with  the  Master  and 
the  twelve,  and  yet  with  the  carpenter 
in  Nazareth?    These  points  will  become 
more  and  more  significant  as  we  proceed. 
When  Jesus  was  in  the  very  height 
of  his  busiest  journeyings  from  place  to 
place,  teaching  and  preaching,  and  doing 
wonderful  works,  with  his  twelve  dis- 
ciples, and  large  crowds  waiting  upon 
his  ministry,  his  mother  and  his  brethren 
came  to  see  him,  and  wished  to  speak 
with  him.      They  could   not   approach 


134  3fARV  OF  NAZARETH. 

him  because  of  the  crowd.  It  was 
doubtless  some  important  matter,  either 
with  reference  to  himself  or  the  family, 
in  which  they  sought  to  interest  him. 
What  it  was  is  not  important  to  us.  Of 
their  coming  Matthew  says :  "  While  he 
yet  talked  to  the  people,  behold,  his 
mother  and  his  brethren  stood  without, 
desiring  to  speak  with  him.  Then  one 
said  unto  him,  Behold,  thy  mother  and 
thy  brethren  stand  without,  desiring  to 
speak  with  thee.  But  he  answered  and 
said  unto  him  that  told  him.  Who  is  my 
mother?  and  who  are  my  brethren? 
And  he  stretched  forth  his  hand  toward 
his  disciples,  and  said.  Behold  my 
mother  and  my  brethren !  For  whoso- 
ever shall  do  the  will  of  my  Father  which 
is  in  heaven,  the  same  is  my  brother, 
and  sister,  and  mother."  (Matthew  xii, 
46-50.  See,  also,  Mark  iii,  31-35;  and 
Luke  viii,   19-21.)     In  these  passages, 


HIS  BRETHREN— CONJECTURES.      1 35 

while  he  sought  to  impress  the  people 
that  the  spiritual  relation  to  God  and  to 
one  another,  was  more  valuable  in  the 
religious  sense  than  the  ties  of  nature, 
he  did  not  disparage  the  latter,  nor  deny 
that  the  parties  standing  without  were 
what  they  were  supposed  to  be — "his 
mother  and  his  brethren."  He  never 
denied  the  relation  which  the  people 
thought  to  exist  between  himself  and 
"  his  brethren.'^  If  the  people  were  be- 
lieving what  was  untrue,  he  confirmed 
them  in  the  wrong  impression,  and  mis- 
led them.  He  pointed  to  the  most  en- 
dearing relations  of  human  life,  as  under- 
stood by  all  present,  to  illustrate  the 
spiritual  union  between  himself  and 
those  who  do  the  will  of  God.  If  some 
one  says  he  did  not  acknowledge  "his 
brethren'*  as  being  such,  the  reply  is 
that  he  treated  his  "mother'*  precisely 
as  he  did  "his  brethren."     There  is  not 


136  3fARV  OF  NAZARETH. 

room  for  doubt  that  all  who  heard  him 
believed  that  his  brethren  were  brothers 
indeed,  the  sons  of  his  mother,  and  he 
said  no  word  to  indicate  the  contrary. 

Beyond  this,  however,  is  the  fact  that 
at  the  time  of  this  interview,  while  *'  his 
mother  and  his  brethren  "  were  without, 
James  the  Less  was  not  with  those  with- 
out, but  he  was  with  the  disciples  within, 
he  being  one  of  the  twelve.  It  is,  there- 
fore, impossible  to  regard  him  as  the 
James  whose  name  heads  the  list  of  "his 
brethren."  He  was  not  of  that  family, 
whether  he  was  in  any  sense  a  cousin,  or 
other  relative,  or  not.  True,  it  is  not 
said  that  all  his  brethren  were  without, 
or  that  every  member  of  the  family  was 
there,  but  the  scope  of  the  passage  is  en- 
tirely inconsistent  with  the  idea  that  one 
of  *'  his  brethren  "  was  inside  with  him, 
and  had  been  with  him  from  the  begin- 
ning,  as  one  of  the   twelve.     No   one 


HIS  BRETHREN— CONJECTURES.      1 37 

would  ever  infer  such  a  thing  from  this 
passage,  or  from  any  other  Scripture. 
Every  effort  to  make  out  that  James  the 
Less,  the  son  of  Alpheus,  was  of  the 
family  of  Joseph  the  carpenter,  and 
known  in  Nazareth,  or  among  the 
twelve,  or  by  any  person  on  the  earth, 
as  one  of  "  his  brethren,"  must  fail  ut- 
terly, because  there  is  nothing  to  support 
it,  and  very  much  against  it.  He  was 
the  son  of  another  Mary,  the  wife  of 
Cleopas,  who,  as  has  been  seen,  was  a 
living  disciple  till  after  Christ's  resur- 
rection, and,  without  reasonable  doubt, 
was  the  head  of  his  own  family,  of  which 
James  the  Less  was  a  member,  whether 
he  lived  in  Nazareth  or  not;  for  the 
place  of  his  residence  is  not  reported  in 
the  Scriptures.  From  all  allusions  made 
to  Nazareth,  and  the  treatment  Jesus 
himself  received  there,  no  one  would 
ever   suspect  that   one   or   two   of   the 


138  MAI?V  OF  NAZARETH. 

twelve  apostles  came  from  there,  at  so 
early  a  period  as  that  at  which  he  called 
the  twelve,  and  ordained  them  apostles. 
The  residence  of  several  of  the  apostles 
is  given,  with  such  distinguishing  re- 
marks concerning  their  families,  that  if 
one  came  from  Nazareth,  and  from  the 
family  of  Joseph,  it  is  incredible  that 
such  a  fact  would  have  been  passed  over 
in  silence.  ''  Now  Philip  was  of  Beth- 
saida,  the  city  of  Andrew  and  Peter." 
James  and  John,  the  sons  of  Zebedee, 
are  easily  located.  The  other  James 
was  "  the  son  of  Alpheus."  If  Alpheus 
was  well  known,  which  is  probable,  that 
designation  would  fully  identify  this 
James,  and  prevent  any  one  from  think- 
ing him  of  the  family  of  Joseph  of  Naz- 
areth. If  Alpheus  and  Cleopas  were  the 
same  person,  Cleopas  being  a  disciple, 
but  not  an  apostle,  and  being  the  hus- 
band of  *'  the  other  Mary,"  the  family  is 


HIS  BRETHREN— CONJECTURES,     1 39 

amply  identified.     If  Alpheus  and  Cle- 
opas  were  not  the  same,  the  only  rational 
conclusion  is  that  Alpheus  was  the  for- 
mer husband  of  Mary,  who  was  now  the 
wife    of    Cleopas,  and    the    mother  of 
James.     She    was    also   the    mother  of 
Joses,  who  was  doubtless  a  disciple,  as 
his  name  appears  in  such  intimate  asso- 
ciation with  that  of  James  and  his  mother 
at  the  crucifixion.     Still  another  of  this 
family   came   into   the   apostolic  office, 
Judas  the  brother  of  James,  who  was 
one  of  the  twelve,  thought  by  many  to 
be  the  person  who  was  called  Thaddeus 
by  Matthew.    The  identity  of  this  Judas 
with  Thaddeus  is  important  here  only 
as  showing  that  two  sons  of  "  the  other 
Mary  "  were  apostles  early,  while  as  yet 
all  ''  his  brethren '»  were  out  of  the  fold, 
and   not   so   much   as   disciples.      It  is 
thought  that  this  Judas,  the  brother  of 
James,  was  called  Thaddeus  to   distin- 


I40  MAIiV  OF  NAZARETH. 

guish  him  from  the  other  Judas,  who 
was  also  one  of  the  twelve;  that  is, 
Judas  Iscariot.  But,  even  if  this  identi- 
fication should  fail,  there  is  still  a  possi- 
bility of  finding  harmony  as  to  the  lists 
of  the  apostles,  and  a  place  for  this 
Judas.  When  Jesus  had  spoken  some 
truths  too  deep  for  the  people,  it  is  said 
that  from  that  time  '*  many  of  his  dis- 
ciples went  back,  and  walked  no  more 
with  him.'*  They  may  not  have  aposta- 
tized, but  withdrew  from  public  identi- 
fication with  him.  There  is  no  hint  that 
one  of  the  twelve  withdrew,  but  the 
Master's  pathetic  appeal  to  those  that 
remained,  indicates  some  apprehension 
as  to  the  stability  of  all  of  them.  "  Then 
said  Jesus  unto  the  twelve.  Will  ye  also 
go  away?  Then  Simon  Peter  answered 
him,  Lord,  to  whom  shall  we  go?  thou 
hast  the  words  of  eternal  life."  In  the 
list  of  apostles  as  first  chosen,  Matthew 


HIS  BRETHREN— CONJECTURES.      1 4 1 

gives  the  name  of  Lebbeus,  also  called 
Thaddeus,  and  only  one  Judas;  but  in 
the  later  lists,  and  notably  that  given  of 
the  eleven  after  the  resurrection,  Judas, 
the  brother  of  James,  appears,  and  Thad- 
deus does  not.  Either  Thaddeus  and 
this  Judas  were  the  same,  or  else  Thad- 
deus withdrew  and  Judas  took  his  place. 
Whether  Judas,  the  brother  of  James, 
came  into  the  apostolic  office  at  the  be- 
ginning as  Thaddeus  or  not,  he  is  in  it, 
and  one  of  the  twelve,  before  any  of  the 
brethren  of  Jesus  became  believers.  He, 
with  James  the  Less,  belonged  to  the 
other  family,  as  has  been  abundantly 
shown,  and  not  to  the  family  of  Joseph, 
the  carpenter  of  Nazareth.  When  he 
wrote  the  epistle  which  bears  his  name, 
he  called  himself  *' Jude,  the  serv^ant  of 
Jesus  Christ,  and  brother  of  James."' 
Thus  two  of  the  family  of  "the  other 
Mary"   are    apostles,   and  Joses   is   un- 


142  MARV  OF  NAZARETH. 

doubtedly  a  disciple,  while  the  fourth, 
Simon,  may  or  may  not  have  been. 
These  can  not  be  the  brethren  of  Jesus, 
notwithstanding  the  similarity  of  their 
names.  It  is  inconceivable  that  they 
should  be  when  all  the  facts  are  taken 
into  the  account.  The  coincidence  of 
names  is  remarkable,  but  that  is  all. 
There  is  no  Scriptural  authority  for  call- 
ing them  ^'  cousins."  Their  mother  was 
one  of  the  noblest  of  women,  ever  true 
to  her  faith,  and  courageous  to  the  last 
degree ;  standing  in  sight  of  the  cross, 
last  at  the  tomb  to  see  the  dead  body  of 
Jesus  laid  away,  and  with  the  first  to  re- 
turn at  dawn  of  the  first-  day  of  the 
week  with  spices  for  the  anointing; 
then  to  become  one  of  the  first  to  be  as- 
sured of  his  resurrection  and  to  bear  the 
news  to  his  disciples.  Nothing  is  taken 
from  the  honor  of  her  loyalty  and  gen- 
uineness as  a  worthy  disciple,  and  as  the 


HIS  BRETHREN— CONJECTURES.      1 43 

mother  of  two  of  the  chosen  twelve,  by 
insisting  that  she  was  not  the  motheif  of 
those  "brethren"  who  did  not  believe  in 
Jesus  during  all  the  period  of  his  Gali- 
lean ministry.  Her  sons  were  in  the 
faith  very  early,  and  endured  to  the  end  ; 
but  neither  of  them  was  "James,  the 
Lord's  brother." 


Or^apfBr  VI. 

HIS  BRETHREN  NOT  DISCIPI.ES. 

tHIS  brings  us  to  another  fact  full 
of  significance  in  this  discussion, 
and  which,  added  to  the  foregoing,  ought 
to  be  decisive,  and  settle  the  entire  ques- 
tion beyond  dispute.  It  is  that  "his 
brethren  "  did  not  believe  on  him,  and 
never  became  disciples  till  after  his  cruci- 
fixion. The  scope  of  the  testimony  is  to 
the  effect  that  his  brethren  stood  to- 
gether in  their  relations  with  him ;  and 
it  is  not  improbable  that  his  mother  hes- 
itated, and  moved  very  slowly  in  com- 
mitting herself  to  his  movements,  being 
amazed  and  full  of  wonder,  not  knowing 
whereunto  his  strange  career  would  lead. 
She  carried  a  burden  in  her  heart  with 

reference    to    him;    for,  no    doubt,   the 
144 


HIS  BRETHREN  NOT  DISCIPLES.     1 45 

prophetic  words  of  Simeon,  which  fell 
upon  her  ears  in  the  temple,  often  came 
to  her  with  thrilling  vividness,  some- 
tim.es  bringing  a  pang,  and  casting  a 
shadow  upon  her  hopes  as  to  his  future  : 
"Yea,  a  sword  shall  pierce  through  thy 
own  soul  also."  Her  relation  to  him  was 
peculiar.  As  yet  she  could  only  *' ponder 
in  her  heart"  the  things  she  knew,  and 
wait.  But  there  was  no  division  among 
his  brethren.  Neither  one  nor  two  of 
them  became  his  disciples  in  his  early 
ministry.  They  tarried  with  his  mother 
while  he  went  forth  with  the  twelve. 
They  were  not  of  the  twelve ;  therefore 
they  were  not  the  children  of  "  the  other 
Mary."  Two  of  her  children  were  ol 
the  twelve — ^James  and  Judas. 

His  standing  in  his  own  family,  among 
his  kin,  and  in  his  own  house,  was 
singular,  and  yet,  perhaps,  not  unnat- 
ural.    There  could  have  been  no  lack  of 


146  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

reverence  on  his  part  towards  Joseph 
and  his  mother,  nor  of  brotherly  affec- 
tion towards  his  brethren  and  sisters; 
but  the  mysterious  outgivings  of  his  life, 
which  they  witnessed  and  yet  could  not 
understand,  must  have  tended  to  keep 
them  somewhat  aloof  from  him,  and  to 
inspire  in  them  feelings  of  anxiety,  if 
not  questionings  of  his  sanity.  Indeed, 
his  friends  or  kinsfolk — no  doubt  includ- 
ing his  brethren — in  the  midst  of  his  suc- 
cess, ''went  out  to  lay  hold  on  himi  for 
they  said,  He  is  beside  himself."  (Mark 
iii,  21.)  The  whole  tenor  of  his  life 
was  beyond  their  comprehension.  They 
stood  in  awe  of  him;  and  while  they  did 
not  commit  themselves  to  him  as  dis- 
ciples, they  did  not  lose  brotherly  re- 
gard for  him.  On  the  other  hand,  their 
backwardness  to  enter  into  full  sympathy 
with  him,  must  have  been  to  him  the 
source  of  keen  reo^ret.     There  is  an  evi- 


HIS  BRETHREN  NOT  DISCIPLES.     1 47 

dent  tinge  of  sadness  in  his  words  when 
he  speaks  of  his  non-acceptance  at  home, 
although  there  is  not  lacking  a  strain  of 
rebuke:  "And  he  went  out  from  thence, 
and  came  into  his  own  country;  and  his 
disciples  follow  him.  And  when  the  Sab- 
bath-day was  come,  he  began  to  teach  in 
the  synagogue:  and  many  hearing  him 
were  astonished,  saying.  From  whence 
hath  this  man  these  things?  and  what 
wisdom  is  this  which  is  given  unto  him, 
that  even  such  mighty  works  are  wrought 
by  his  hands?  Is  not  this  the  carpenter, 
the  son  of  Mary,  the  brother  of  James, 
and  Joses,  and  of  Judas,  and  Simon? 
and  are  not  his  sisters  here  with  us? 
And  they  were  offended  in  him.  But 
Jesus  said  unto  them,  A  prophet  is  not 
without  honor,  but  in  his  own  country, 
and  among  his  own  kin,  and  in  his  own 
house.  And  he  could  there  do  no  mighty 
work,  save  that  he  laid  his  hands  upon  a 


148  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

few  sick  folk,  and  healed  them.  And  he 
marveled  because  of  their  unbelief." 
(Mark  vi,  1-6.  See  also  Matt,  xiii, 
54-58;  and  Luke  iv,  16-23.)  ^^^  ^^t- 
thew  the  question  is:  ''Is  not  this  the 
carpenter's  son?"  This  is  doubtless  the 
visit  to  Nazareth,  "where  he  was  brought 
up,"  when  the  people  first  "wondered  at 
the  gracious  words  which  proceeded  out 
of  his  mouth,"  and  then  became  angry, 
and  "rose  up,  and  thrust  him  out  of  the 
city,  and  led  him  unto  the  brow  of  the  hill 
whereon  their  city  was  built,  that  they 
might  cast  him  down  headlong."  Their 
sudden  revulsion  of  feeling,  seemingly 
caused  by  his  intimation  that  God  had 
thoughts  of  mercy  towards  some  who 
were  not  Jews,  shows  their  excitable- 
ness,  as  well  as  the  strength  of  their 
bigotry  as  Jews.  From  this  time  for- 
ward he  made  Capernaum  his  home,  and 
the  center  of   his  operations,  probably 


HIS  BRETHREN  NOT  DISCIPLES.    1 49 

accepting  the  hospitality  of  his  aunt,  the 
mother  of  Zebedee's  children. 

The  unbelief  at  Nazareth,  at  which  he 
marveled,  was  plainly  painful  to  him. 
Some  of  his  own  family  were  implicated. 
This  fact  gave  poignancy  to  his  .grief. 
There  is  pathos  in  the  way  he  came,  in 
his  reply,  to  those  who  were  so  dear  to 
him,  and  who  withheld  from  him  the 
confidence  he  craved:  "Save  in  his  own 
country^  and  among  his  own  kin^  and  in 
his  own  house, ^^  Passing  from  his  coun- 
trymen to  his  kin^  and  from  his  kin  to 
those  of  his  own  house ^hs,  touched  a  chord 
that,  in  his  mother's  breast,  must  have 
awakened  memories  of  early  prophecies 
and  deepest  solicitude,  and  should  have 
brought  from  *'his  brethren"  responses 
of  fraternal  sympathy.  With  what  emo- 
tions they  received  the  expressions  of 
his  sorrow  is  not  known;  but  they  did 
not  become  his  disciples.    Neither  James 


I50  3fAI?y  OF  NAZARETH. 

nor  Joses  nor  Judas  nor  Simon  was  ready 
to  receive  his  testimony,  or  enter  into  his 
work;  much  less  was  either  ready  to  be- 
come an  apostle.  The  James  who  was 
with  him — James  the  Less — was  evi- 
dently not  of  his  kiii^  or  of  his  own  house. 
Surely  this  is  demonstrated. 

The  unbelief  of  his  brethren  contin- 
ued throughout  his  ministry  in  Galilee, 
and  till  after  his  crucifixion  at  Jerusalem. 
It  was  late  in  his  ministry,  and  not  long 
before  his  last  journey  to  Jerusalem, 
when  they  urged  him  to  go  into  Judea 
that  his  disciples  might  see  his  works, 
rather  implying  inconsistency  on  his  part 
in  keeping  his  works  secret,  and  yet  de- 
siring public  recognition  of  his  claims. 
So  we  read:  *'Now  the  Jews'  feast  of 
tabernacles  was  at  hand.  His  brethren 
therefore  said  unto  him,  Depart  hence, 
and  go  into  Judea,  that  thy  disciples 
also  may  see  the  works  that  thou  doest: 


HIS  BRETHREN  NOT  DISCIPLES,    1 5 1 

for  there  is  no  man  that  doeth  anything 
in  secret,  and  he  himself  seeketh  to  be 
known  openly.  If  thon  do  these  things, 
show  thyself  to  the  world.  For  neither 
did  his  brethren  believe  in  him.  Then 
Jesus  said  unto  them,  My  time  is  not 
yet  come :  but  your  time  is  always  ready. 
The  world  can  not  hate  you:  but  me  it 
hateth,  because  I  testify  of  it  that  the 
works  thereof  are  evil.  Go  ye  up  unto 
this  feast:  I  go  not  up  yet  unto  this 
feast ;  for  my  time  is  not  yet  full  come. 
When  he  had  said  these  w^ords  unto 
them,  he  abode  still  in  Galilee.  But 
when  his  brethren  were  gone  up,  then 
went  he  also  up  unto  the  feast,  not 
openly,  but  as  it  were  in  secret."  (John 
vii,  2-10.) 

Evidently  *'his  brethren"  were  per- 
plexed, and  while  unwilling  to  acknowl- 
edge him  as  the  Messiah,  they  were  im- 
pressed with  his  extraordinary  character. 


1 5  2  MAR  Y  OF  NAZARETH. 

They  knew  that  strange  influences  at- 
tended him;  that  he  did  things  which 
other  men  could  not  do ;  that  his  wisdom 
was  beyond  their  depth ;  that  the  purity 
of  his  life  lifted  him  above  the  suspicion 
of  pretentiousness;  that  neither  sordid 
nor  selfish  motives  actuated  him, — yet 
they  could  not  realize  that  the  long-ex- 
pected King  of  Israel  dwelt  in  their 
humble  home.  They  were  persuaded 
that  he  was  no  ordinary  person,  and 
were  solicitous  that  those  at  Jerusalem, 
whom  they  supposed  most  capable, 
might  have  the  opportunity,  if  it  were 
possible,  to  discover  the  secret  of  his 
power.  It  is  not  unlikely  that  indigna- 
tion sometimes  mingled  with  their  won- 
der, as  they  sought  to  know  more  of  the 
mystery  that  surrounded  him,  only  to  find 
themselves  unable  to  approach  the  solu- 
tion. They  naturally  held  him  at  a  dis- 
tance, till  he  became,  in  feeling  and  in 


HIS 'BRETHREN  NOT  DISCIPLES.     1 53 

fact,  a  "stranger  to  his  brethren,  and  an 
alien  to  his  mother's  children." 

This  exact  condition  of  things  was 
foretold  in  the  Psalms,  proving  at  once 
the  prophetic  character  of  the  Psalm  as 
truly  Messianic,  and  the  relation  of  "his 
brethren"  to  himself  and  to  his  mother. 
In  this  investigation  great  weight  is  to 
be  recognized  in  these  prophetic  utter- 
ances. They  are  quoted  and  applied  to 
him  by  the  evangelists  so  as  to  show 
their  meaning  and  literal  fulfillment. 
In  Psalm  Ixix,  8,  9,  we  read  words  which 
the  New  Testament  ascribes  to  him:  "I 
am  become  a  stranger  unto  my  brethren, 
and  an  alien  unto  my  mother's  children. 
For  the  zeal  of  thine  house  hath  eaten 
me  up:  and  the  reproaches  of  them  that 
reproach  thee  are  fallen  upon  me."  If 
these  words  relate  to  Christ,  their  testi- 
mony is  as  if  he  had  uttered  them  with 
his  own  lips ;  and  their  exact  description 


154  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

of  the  state  of  things  in  his  own  house- 
hold at  Nazareth  is  something  to  think 
about. 

That  the  language  does  refer  to  him, 
and  is  so  applied  in  the  New  Testament, 
is  unquestionable.  Take  the  following : 
*'And  his  disciples  remembered  that  it 
was  written,  The  zeal  of  thine  house 
hath  eaten  me  up."  (John  ii,  17.)  This 
application  to  him  of  this  sentence  car- 
ries with  it  the  application  of  the  whole 
passage.  The  Apostle  Paul  applies  the 
same  passage  to  Christ,  quoting  another 
part  of  it :  "  For  even  Christ  pleased  not 
himself;  but,  as  it  is  written.  The  re- 
proaches of  them  that  reproached  thee 
fell  on  me.'^  (Romans  xv,  2.)  Then, 
how  pertinent  and  discriminating  these 
words :  "A  stranger  unto  my  brethren, 
and  an  alien  unto  my  mother^s  chil- 
dren !'*  An  alien,  not  to  my  kindred, 
nor  to  my  cousins,  nor  to  my  father's 


HIS  BRETHREN  NOT   DISCIPLES.    1 55 

children,  but  *'  an  alien  unto  my  mother's 
children" — literally,  *'the  sons  of  my 
mother."  Further  along  in  this  Psalm 
are  other  predictions  concerning  him, 
which  were  fulfilled  in  him,  and  were 
applied  to  him  in  the  New  Testament, 
confirming  the  interpretation  which 
makes  him  and  his  brethren,  who  did  not 
believe  in  him,  the  subjects  of  this 
prophecy :  "  They  gave  me  also  gall  for 
my  meat,  and  in  my  thirst  they  gave  me 
vinegar  to  drink."  (Psalm  Ixix,  21.) 
Who  doubts  that  this  was  fulfilled  when 
Jesus  hung  upon  the  cross  ?  We  read, 
Matthew  xxvii,  34:  ''They  gave  him 
vinegar  to  drink,  mingled  with  gall." 
Mark  xv,  36:  "And  one  ran  and  filled  a 
sponge  full  of  vinegar,  and  put  it  on  a 
reed,  and  gave  him  to  drink."  John 
xix,  29:  "Now  there  was  a  vessel  full  of 
vinegar,  and  they  filled  a  sponge  full  of 
vinegar,   and  put  it  upon  hyssop,  and 


156  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

put  it  to  his  mouth."  It  can  not  be 
that  any  one  who  believes  the  Scriptures 
will  doubt  that  the  predictions  of  this 
Psalm,  even  in  their  minuteness  of  de- 
tail, were  applied  to  Christ,  and  fulfilled 
in  him.  But,  if  so,  here  are  words  w^liich 
belong  to  him,  with  all  their  signifi- 
cance: ''I  am  become  a  stranger  unto 
my  brethren,  and  an  alien  unto  my 
mother's  children.'' 

There  are  predictions  in  another 
Psalm  concerning  him,  which  were  as 
literally  fulfilled  in  him,  and  are  as  dis- 
tinctly applied  to  him,  which  are  so  used 
by  the  evangelists  as  to  corroborate  the 
above.  Psalm xxii,  15-18:  ''My strength 
is  dried  up  like  a  potsherd;  and  my 
tongue  cleaveth  to  my  jaws;  and  thou 
hast  brought  me  into  the  dust  of  death. 
For  dogs  have  compassed  me:  the  as- 
sembly of  the  wicked  have  inclosed  me : 
they  pierced  my  hands  and  my  feet.     I 


HIS  BRETHREN  NOT  DISCIPLES.    1 57 

may  tell  all  my  bones :  they  look  and 
stare  upon  me.  They  part  my  garments 
among  them,  and  cast  lots  upon  my  ves- 
ture." Matthew  so  blends  this  passage 
in  its  fulfillment,  with  the  words  above 
quoted  from  Psalm  Ix,  19,  that  the  two 
prophecies  must  apply  alike  to  the  same 
person;  ''They  gave  him  vinegar  to 
drink,  mingled  with  gall :  and  when  he 
had  tasted  thereof,  he  would  not  drink. 
And  they  crucified  him,  and  parted  his 
garments,  casting  lots :  that  it  might  be 
fulfilled  which  was  spoken  by  the 
prophet,  They  parted  my  garments 
among  them,  and  upon  my  vesture  did 
they  cast  lots." 

In  the  light  of  these  prophecies,  and 
of  their  fulfillment  in  the  person  of  the 
Son  of  Mary,  and  their  authoritative  ap- 
plication to  him  by  New  Testament 
writers,  we  may  well  ask,  What  is  lack- 
ing in  the  proof  that   "his  brethren," 


158  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

who  did  not  believe  in  him;  who  took 
him  to  be  beside  himself;  who  virtually 
challenged  him  to  submit  his  claims  to 
the  specialists  and  experts  of  Jerusalem; 
and  to  whom  he  became  a  "stranger'* 
and  an  "alien,''  were  his  mother's  chil- 
dren? They  were  persistently  called  his 
brethren,  not  only  by  their  neighbors, 
but  by  his  disciples  and  by  the  evan- 
gelists, and  this  till  after  his  crucifixion 
and  ascension;  and  finally,  by  the  Apostle 
Paul  after  their  conversion.  Not  one  of 
them  was  of  "  the  twelve,"  but  they  are 
always  distinguished  from  "  the  twelve," 
so  that  they  can  not  be  confounded  with 
the  children  of  the  other  Mary  without 
absolute  confusion. 

Possibly  this  attitude  of  his  brethren 
towards  him  may  help  us  to  understand 
some  things  in  his  earthly  life,  and  es- 
pecially in  his  course  towards  his  family, 
that  some  have  thought  strange.     It  is 


HIS   BRETHREN  NOT  DISCIPLES.    159 

evident  that  he  did  not  seem  to  value 
the   ties   of  flesh   and   blood   as   many 
others  do.    He  looked  upon  them  in  the 
light  of  higher  relationships  in  the  king- 
dom of  God,  which  were  constantly  be- 
fore his  mind,  and  the  contrast  brought 
worldly  things  to  their  proper  level.    His 
constant  exaltation  of  the  spiritual  above 
the  temporal  is  the  explanation  of  what 
appears  to  be  a  disregard  of  the  claims  ot 
these  earthly  relationships.     He  is  not 
known   to   have    shown    any   partiahty 
towards  his  brethren,  because  they  were 
his  brethren ;  nor  to  have  made  any  ex- 
cuse for  their  unbelief  on  this  account. 
So,  also,  in  his  relation   to  his  mother, 
while  he  was  kind  and  courteous  and 
affectionate,  yet  he  sometimes  appeared 
stern  and  almost  disrespectful. 

At  the  time  of  his  visit  to  Jerusalem, 
at  twelve  years  of  age,  this  peculiarity 
exhibited  itself.    He  tarried  behind  when 


l6o  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

his  parents  started  home,  without  con- 
sulting them.  When  they  missed  him, 
and  returned  and  found  him,  with  great 
tenderness  his  mother  referred  to  the 
anxiety  they  had  felt  while  seeking  him 
"  sorrowing."  In  his  reply  we  have  the 
first  recorded  words  from  his  lips.  In 
them  there  is  no  expression  of  regret 
for  their  trouble  or  sorrow,  but  what  ap- 
proaches the  character  of  rebuke.  "And 
he  said  unto  them,  How  is  it  that  ye 
sought  me?  Wist  ye  not  that  I  must 
be  about  my  Father's  business?"  He 
saw,  as  they  did  not,  the  higher  claims 
of  the  things  of  God.  When  at  the  mar- 
riage at  Cana,  where  his  mother  was 
active,*  and  probably  anticipated  a  mir- 
acle, he  displayed  a  disposition  not  to 
permit  any  one,  not  even  his  mother,  to 
meddle  with  what  was  his  own  work. 
When    the    wine    was    exhausted,    his 

*  Some  thiuk  one  of  her  daughters  was  the  bride. 


HIS  BRETHREN  NOT  DISCIPLES.    l6l 

mother  came  and  said  to  him,  *'They 
have  no  wine!"  ''Jesus  said  unto  her, 
Woman,  what  have  I  to  do  with  thee  ? 
Mine  hour  is  not  yet  come."  These 
words  can  hardly  be  explained  without 
including  in  their  meaning  some  ele- 
ments of  rebuke.  It  was  not  dislike  to 
his  mother,  or  to  womanhood,  but  his 
unyielding  purpose  not  to  permit  inter- 
ference with  his  own  work,  or  to  allow  any 
worldly  influence  or  motive  to  sway  him 
in  what  pertained  to  his  mission.  When 
his  mother  and  his  brethren  came  where 
he  was  teaching,  and  wanted  to  speak 
with  him,  he  did  not  deny  their  relation 
to  him,  nor  their  claim  upon  his  atten- 
tion; but  he  took  occasion  to  show  his 
higher  appreciation  of  the  spiritual  re- 
lation that  grows  out  of  obedience  to 
God,  and  membership  in  the  kingdom  of 
heaven. 

In  all  these  instances  he  shows  that 


1 62  MAJ^V  OF  NAZARETH. 

the  Spiritual  and  eternal  have  precedence 
over  the  material  and  temporal  relations. 
The  lesson  was  taught  by  his  action 
more  impressively  than  it  could  be  by 
words.  It  is  the  lesson  taught  in  his 
terms  of  discipleship,  when  he  requires 
that  father,  mother,  wife,  children,  and 
all  possessions  be  given  up,  or  held  in 
abeyance,  so  as  not  to  stand  in  the  way 
of  complete  devotion  to  his  service. 
"  Whosoever  loveth  father  or  mother 
more  than  me,  is  not  worthy  of  me." 
On  this  high  plane  he  lived  on  earth, 
never  hesitating,  never  faltering  in  any 
emergency,  and  never  failing  to  make 
the  will  of  God  the  supreme  law  of  his 
life  and  being.  Even  his  mother  could 
not  fully  understand  him,  and  to  his 
brethren  he  was  a  perplexity  and  grief. 
They  could  not  enter  into  his  sphere, 
nor  realize  the  power  of  his  consecration ; 
so     they     waited,    and    wondered,    and 


HIS  BRETHREN  NOT  DISCIPLES.    1 63 

wished  him  to  go  to  Jerusalem,  the  seat 
of  wisdom  and  knowledge,  that  his 
claims  to  the  supernatural  might  be 
tested.  His  brethren  did  not  believe. 
His  standard  was  too  high  for  them  till 
after  the  dispensation  of  the  Spirit  came 
with  power. 


ar^aphr  VIL 

HIS  BRETHREN  CONVERTED. 

FTER  this  study  of  the  attitude  of 
the  family  of  Mary  towards  her 
first-born  son,  and  the  recognition  of 
their  persistent  doubts,  it  is  a  comfort  to 
be  assured  that  at  last  "his  brethren" 
were  all  brought  into  the  kingdom  of 
God  and  numbered  with  the  saved. 

The  details  of  their  conversion  are  not 
available.  The  exact  time  of  the  aban- 
donment of  their  doubts,  and  of  the 
opening  of  their  hearts  to  the  testimony 
that  satisfied  them,  we  may  not  know; 
nor  can  we  trace  their  mental  processes 
in  entering  into  the  faith;  but  the  very 
brief  recognition  of  their  discipleship 
with  which  we  are  favored  points  pretty 

conclusively  to  their  acceptance  of  the 
T64 


HIS  BRETHREN  CONVERTED.        1 65 

proofs  of  his  resurrection  from  the  dead, 
and  joining  themselves  to  the  company 
of  believers  as  a  result.  Before  his  last 
journey  to  Jerusalem,  and,  as  far  as  we 
can  gather,  up  to  the  time  of  the  cruci- 
fixion, they  held  themselves  apart,  and 
formed  a  distinct  company  in  all  their 
movements.  They  are  always  separately 
classed,  as  in  John  ii,  12:  "After  this  he 
went  down  to  Capernaum,  he,  and  his 
mother,  and  his  brethren,  and  his  dis- 
ciples; and  they  continued  there  not 
many  days."  This  was  not  the  removal 
of  the  family,  but  was  a  family  visit, 
possibly  to  the  home  of  her  sister.  When 
he  was  within,  with  the  twelve,  his 
mother  and  his  brethren  stood  without. 
They  were  interested  enough  in  him 
and  in  his  work  to  look  after  him ;  and 
their  faithful  attendance  upon  their 
mother  in  all  her  movements  is  worthy 
of  admiration.     With  such  a  mother  and 


1 66  MARV  OF  NAZARETH. 

such  surroundings,  it  must  be  that  they 
possessed  some  admirable  traits  of  char- 
acter. They  were,  no  doubt,  model 
young  men,  such  as  Jesus  loved,  as  was 
the  young  man  of  the  Gospel  who 
wanted  to  know  what  good  thing  he 
should  do  in  order  to  inherit  eternal  life. 
In  all  the  Scriptural  references  to  them 
and  their  course  with  regard  to  Jesus, 
there  is  no  intimation  of  misconduct,  or 
of  undutiful  action  towards  their  parents, 
or  even  towards  their  elder  brother,  ex- 
cept the  fact  that  they  did  not  become 
his  disciples. 

They  observed  the  requirements  of  the 
law,  and  went  up  to  the  feasts  at  Jerusa- 
lem, as  they  had  done  from  their  youth. 
When  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  was  ap- 
proaching, as  we  have  seen,  they  urged 
Jesus  to  go  to  it,  and  show  himself  to 
the  world.  It  can  not  be  doubted  that 
they  were  at  Jerusalem  at  the  time  of 


HIS  BRETHREN  CONVERTED.        1 67 

his  arrest.  Their  loyalty  to  their  mother 
and  his,  would  keep  them  near  her  per- 
son. They  could  not  fail  to  be  anxious 
observers  of  all  that  was  taking  place. 
We  must  suppose  that  they  were  present 
at  his  trial ;  that  they  saw  the  confusion 
of  Pilate;  that  they  heard  the  shout  of 
the  rabble,  crying,  "Away  with  him! 
crucify  him!"  and  without  doubt  they 
followed  to  Golgotha,  and  kept  with  his 
other  acquaintances  from  Galilee,  who 
stood  afar  off,  and  beheld  these  things. 
They  joined  their  mother  and  her  rela- 
tives, who  were  present,  in  mourning 
his  tragic  end.  Nor  is  it  at  all  unlikely 
that  they  saw  his  body  taken  from  the 
cross  and  laid  in  Joseph's  new  tomb. 
On  the  first  day  of  the  week  they  were 
not  far  away  when  the  news  of  his  rising 
spread  abroad.  Strange  if  they  did  not 
visit  the  empty  sepulcher!  Soon  they 
heard  the  witnesses  tell  their  story,  who 


1 68  MARV  OF  NAZARETH, 

had  seen  him  alive.  At  some  point  or 
other,  while  these  stirring  events  were 
taking  place,  their  doubts  gave  way,  and 
the  light  and  joy  of  faith  dawned  upon 
their  souls,  as  they  realized  the  fact  that 
he  had  risen.  They  humbly  accepted 
the  testimony  that  proved  him  divine. 
Step  by  step  they  followed  on  till  they 
saw  him  for  themselves,  and  knew  that 
he  lived  again.  Tarrying  still  in  Jeru- 
salem, and  companying  with  his  friends 
from  Galilee,  they  learned  all.  If  they 
went  to  Galilee,  they  probably  saw  him 
in  the  mountain,  and  mingled  with  the 
large  company  when  five  hundred  saw 
him  at  once.  They  were  back  in  Jeru- 
salem before  he  was  taken  up,  and  from 
the  Mount  of  Olivet  they  gazed  at  his 
ascending  form  till  the  cloud  received 
him  out  of  their  sight.  Then,  too,  they 
must  have  heard  the  words  of  the  angel, 
saying:  *'Ye  men  of  Galilee,  why  stand 


HIS  BRETHREN  CONVERTED.        1 69 

ye  gazing  up  into  heaven?  this  same 
Jesus,  which  is  taken  up  from  you  into 
heaven,  shall  so  come  in  like  manner  as 
ye  have  seen  him  go  into  heaven." 
From  this  sight,  and  from  this  angelic 
testimony,  they  gladly  returned  to  Jeru- 
salem, their  souls  enraptured  with  tri- 
umphant faith,  and  were  henceforth 
numbered  with  the  disciples. 

This  is  not  all  fancy.  The  record 
which  discloses  this  outcome  is  unequiv- 
ocal. When  the  celestial  visitors  of  the 
ascension  escort,  who  tarried  behind,  had 
delivered  their  greeting  and  message  to 
the  ''men  of  Galilee,"  it  is  said  of  the 
company  of  believers:  "Then  returned 
they  unto  Jerusalem  from  the  mount 
called  Olivet,  which  is  from  Jerusalem  a 
Sabbath-day's  journey.  And  when  they 
were  come  in,  they  went  up  into  an  up- 
per room,  where  abode  both  Peter,  and 
James,  and  John,  and  Andrew,   Philip, 


lyo  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

and  Thomas,  Bartholomew,  and  Mat- 
thew, James  the  son  of  Alpheus,  and 
Simon  Zelotes,  and  Judas  the  brother  of 
James.  These  all  continued  with  one 
accord  in  prayer  and  supplication,  with 
the  women,  and  Mary  the  mother  of 
Jesus,  and  with  his  brethren.'*  (Acts  i, 
12-14.)  Here  are  all  the  apostles,  in- 
cluding James  the  son  of  Zebedee,  and 
James  the  son  of  Alpheus,  and  Judas 
the  brother  of  James,  and  the  women, 
and  Mary  the  mother  of  Jesus,  and  his 
brethren!  His  brethren  are  not  included 
in  the  list  of  the  apostles.  Not  one  of 
them  as  yet  belongs  to  that  company. 
James  and  Judas,  the  two  sons  of  ''the 
other  Mary,'*  are  in  that  list,  but  ''his 
brethren"  are  not.  Yet  now  at  lenQ^th 
they  are  with  the  disciples,  for  the  first 
time.  Their  unbelief  is  gone,  and  from 
the  Mount  of  Olivet  they  come  with  the 
company  of  believers  into  this  "upper 


HIS  BRETHREN  CONVERTED.         171 

room,'*  and  henceforth  they  are  in  the 
inner  circle  of  this  holy  fellowship. 
"The  number  of  names  together  were 
about  one  hundred  and  twenty,"  and 
"his  brethren,'*  the  sons  of  his  mother, 
are  all  within.  They,  with  the  others, 
await  the  promise  of  the  Father,  and 
share  the  baptism  of  Pentecost.  On 
them  was  poured  out  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Their  induction  into  the  king- 
dom w^as  complete. 

In  after  years  the  Apostle  Paul  recog- 
nizes them  as  standing  high  in  the 
Church.  He  was  not  of  "the  twelve," 
and  his  apostleship  was  challenged  by 
some,  to  which  challenge  he  gave  an- 
swer: "If  I  be  not  an  apostle  to  others, 
yet  doubtless  I  am  to  you :  for  the  seal 
of  mine  apostleship  are  ye  in  the  Lord. 
Mine  answer  to  them  that  do  examine 
me  is  this:  Have  we  not  power  to  eat 
and  to  drink?     Have  we  not  power  to 


172  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

lead  about  a  sister,  a  wife,  as  well  as 
other  apostles,  and  as  the  brethren  of 
the  Lord,  and  Cephas?  Or  I  only  and 
Barnabas,  have  not  we  power  to  forbear 
working?"  He  and  Barnabas  had  been 
working  with  their  hands  to  support 
themselves,  and  had  appeared  to  some 
not  quite  up  to  the  standard  of  apostle- 
ship,  and  Paul  shows  why  they  did  it. 
Their  service  in  this  regard  was  volun- 
tary. They  fully  appreciated  their  right 
to  "forbear  Avorking,"  and  to  become  a 
charge  to  the  Church;  to  avail  them- 
selves of  all  domestic  privileges  and 
comforts;  to  marry,  and  gather  about 
them  the  advantages  of  home, — as  "the 
brethren  of  the  Lord"  had  done,  with- 
out reproach,  and  as  Cephas  or  Peter 
had  done.  "Even  so  hath  the  Lord  or- 
dained that  they  which  preach  the  gos- 
pel should  live  of  the  gospel.  But  I 
have  used  none  of  these  things.     .     .     . 


HIS  BRETHREN  CONVERTED.        1 73 

For  it  were  better  for  me  to  die,  than 
that  any  man  should  make  my  glorying 
void.  .  .  .  What  is  my  reward  then? 
Verily  that,  when  I  preach  the  gospel, 
I  may  make  the  gospel  of  Christ  with- 
out charge,  that  I  abuse  not  my  power 
in  the  gospel."  In  this  way  Paul  justi- 
fied himself  in  continuing  without  a 
wife;  at  the  same  time  claiming  the 
same  rights  in  this  respect  that  were 
enjoyed  by  Peter  and  "the  brethren  of 
the  Lord."  Surely,  then,  these  "breth- 
ren" had  become  eminent  in  the  Church 
of  God,  worthy  to  be  cited  as  examples 
in  connection  with  the  apostles. 

It  was  not  because  he  deemed  it  unlaw- 
ful for  him  to  have  a  wife ;  for  he  claimed 
the  right,  and  vindicated  it,  showing 
that  his  commendation  of  celibacy  was 
only  for  times  of  persecution,  and  that 
his  practice  of  it  was  voluntary,  and 
simply   a  ,  matter   of  expediency.      He 


174  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

would  not  burden  the  Church  with  his 
own  support,  much  less  just  then  with 
the  support  of  himself  with  a  family. 
In  support  of  his  right  to  marry,  he 
pointed  to  the  example  of  Peter,  who 
was  known  to  be  a  married  man;  and  in 
this  connection  he  referred,  in  a  general 
way,  to  "the  other  apostles,'*  without 
naming  them,  but  so  as  to  imply  that 
some  of  them  were  married.  It  is  not 
known  whether  John  was  or  not.  When 
he  took  Mary,  the  mother  of  Jesus,  to 
"  his  own  home  '*  to  live,  he  either  took 
her  to  his  mother's  house,  which  was  yet 
his  home,  as  before  stated,  or  else  he  was 
married,  and  had  a  home  of  his  own. 
Paul  also  alludes  to  "the  brethren  of  the 
Lord,'*  who  were  doubtless  by  this  time 
highly  esteemed  and  influential  in  the 
Church,  and  some  of  them,  at  least,  mar- 
ried. This  allusion  to  "the  brethren  of 
the  Lord,"  as  honored  disciples,  can  not 


HIS  BRETHREN  CONVERTED.        1 75 

be  misunderstood.  They  were  yet  dis- 
tinct from  ''the  twelve,"  but  they  were 
believers,  well  known,  and  worthy  to  be 
cited  as  examples. 

The  oldest  of  these  ''brethren  of  the 
Lord"  was  James;  at  least  his  name  is 
first  in  the  list  given  by  the  evangelists. 
He,  like  Paul  and  Barnabas,  was  not  of 
"the  twelve."  There  were,  however, 
two  of  the  name  in  the  original  twelve — 
the  son  of  Zebedee,  and  the  son  of  Al- 
pheus.  It  is  clear  that  there  were  other 
apostles  besides  the  twelve,  for  Paul  and 
Barnabas  were  such.  At  some  time  after 
the  Pentecost  another  James  became  an 
apostle,  and  was  known  to  Paul  as 
"James  the  Lord's  brother."  This  dis- 
tinguished him  from  James  the  brother 
of  John,  and  from  James  the  son  of  Al- 
pheus  and  brother  of  Jude;  but  it  does 
not  entitle  him  to  all  the  honor  which 
tradition  has  given  him.     In  the  early 


176  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

ages  of  the  Church,  the  "fathers"  spoke 
of  him  as  James  the  Just,  as  the  first 
Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  as  presiding  in  the 
council  at  Jerusalem,  and  as  doing  many 
things  which  were  really  done  by  James 
the  Less. 


Oriiaphr  VIII. 

«'THE  LORD'S  BROTHER." 

tHE  date  at  wliicli  Paul  visited  Jeru- 
salem, when  he  saw  "James  the 
Lord's  brother,"  is  not  easily  fixed.     It 
was  after  his   conversion,  and  after  he 
had  been  in  Arabia,  and  had  returned  to 
Damascus.     Whether  the  three  years  he 
mentions  included  all  the  time  of  his  ab- 
sence from  Jerusalem,  since  he  started 
to  Damascus  on  his  mission  of  persecu- 
tion, till  he  returned  to  see  Peter;    or 
whether  it  was  three  years  after  he  re- 
turned from  Arabia  to  Damascus,  before 
he  went  to  Jerusalem,  is  an  open  ques- 
tion.    It   is   thought  by  some   that  he 
went  to  Jerusalem  immediately  after  his 
escape  from  Damascus,  when  he  was  let 
down  from  the  wall  in  a  basket;  but  his 
12  177 


178  MARV  OF  NAZARETH. 

own  account  does  not  look  that  way.  He 
was  evidently  absent  from  Jerusalem 
three  years.  His  visit  to  see  Peter  may 
have  been  a  private  visit,  for  his  personal 
benefit,  before  he  went  to  Tarsus,  where 
he  was  subsequently  found  by  Barnabas, 
and  taken  over  to  Antioch,  and  put  into 
active  service. 

A  close  inspection  of  the  record  indi- 
cates that  after  his  conversion,  and  first 
preaching  in  Damascus,  and  his  escape 
therefrom,  Paul  was  not  known  as  an 
active  apostle  for  some  considerable 
time ;  perhaps  not  till  after  the  great  re- 
vival in  Antioch,  the  news  of  which 
came  to  the  Church  in  Jerusalem,  and 
caused  that  Church  to  send  Barnabas  to 
Antioch  to  see  about  it.  Barnabas  went 
and  inspected  the  work,  and  approved 
it,  and  joined  in  to  help  it  along.  He 
had  not  been  there  long  till  he  felt  the 
need  of  more  help,  and  went  to  Antioch 


''THE  LORD'S  BROTHER:'  179 

to  seek  Paul.     The  account  in  Acts  ix 
reads  as  if  Paul  came  directly  to  Jerusa- 
lem from  Damascus;   but  this  account 
does  not  give  dates,  and  this  visit  must 
have  been  after  he  had  been  in  Arabia. 
It  may  have  been  his  visit  to  Jerusalem 
when  he  essayed  to  join  himself  to  the 
disciples,  and  they  were  afraid  of  him, 
and  would  not  believe  he  was  a  disciple. 
'*Then  Barnabas  took  him  and  brought 
him  to  the  apostles,  and  declared  unto 
them  how  he  had  seen  the  Lord  in  the 
way,  and  that  he  had  spoken  to  him, 
and   how   he   had    preached    boldly   in 
Damascus  in  the  name  of  Jesus."     This 
was  not  a  private  visit  to  Peter;  for  he 
was  with  the   apostles,  coming  in  and 
going  out,  and  spake  boldly  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  disputed  with  the 
Grecians.    If  this  was  the  occasion  when 
he  saw  only  Peter  and  James  the  Lord's 
brother,  it  must  have  been  before  Barna- 


l8o  AfAI^r  OF  NAZARETH. 

bas  became  an  apostle ;  for  he  saw  Bar- 
nabas, and  Barnabas  took  him  to  the 
apostles,  and  attested  his  conversion  and 
discipleship.  This  was  probably  a  short 
visit,  and  immediately  after  it,  Paul  was 
taken  by  the  brethren  to  Cesarea,  and 
went  on  to  Tarsus.  It  may  be  that  at 
that  time  the  other  apostles  w^ere  all  out 
of  the  city,  so  that  only  Peter  and  this 
James  were  there.  Paul  himself  was  a 
disciple,  but  not  yet  accredited  as  an 
apostle.  This  was  also  the  standing  of 
Barnabas  at  that  time;  but  after  the  great 
work  at  Antioch,  both  Barnabas  and 
Paul  became  apostles,  and  went  forth 
fully  equipped  for  all  of  the  work  of 
apostles.  Barnabas,  after  introducing 
Paul  in  Jerusalem,  and  vouching  for  his 
discipleship,  was  sent  to  Antioch,  and 
thence  went  to  Tarsus,  and  found  Paul; 
and  the  two  together  continued  there 
a  year,  and   after  visiting  other  places, 


"THE  LORD'S  BROTHER^  l8l 

doing  evangelistic  work,  they  were  to- 
gether sent  to  Jerusalem  with  the  con- 
tributions of  the  Churches  for  the  poor 
in  Judea.     These  two  were  specially  set 
apart  at  Antioch,  and  ordained  apostles, 
under  the  direction  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  sent  forth  by  the  Church  to  their 
special  work;  and  this  after  they  had  re- 
turned from  their  mission  of  charity  to 
Jerusalem.     From  which  it  appears  that 
apostles  could  be  made  by  the  Church 
without  the  presence  of  other  apostles, 
and  without  the  formality  of  an  appoint- 
ment or  approval  by  the  apostles,  or  by 
the  Mother  Church  in  Jerusalem.     It  is 
possible  that  Paul's  first  visit  to  Jerusa- 
lem to  see  Peter  was  while  the  elder 
James  was  yet  living.     If  so,  he  was  not 
in  the  city  at  the  time,  or  Paul  would 
have  seen  him.     After  the  persecution 
that  arose  about  Stephen,  which  appears 
to  have  been  quite  a  while  after  the  death 


1 82  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

of  Stephen,  those  of  prominence  in  the 
Church,  doubtless  including  several  apos- 
tles, *'were  scattered  abroad,'*  and  went 
to  Phenice  and  Cyprus  and  Antioch, 
preaching  the  Word.  Through  their  in- 
strumentality the  work  was  begun  in 
Antioch.  It  was  almost  certainly  during 
the  time  of  this  "scattering  abroad,'*  or 
while  the  apostles  were  engaged  in  the 
work  begun  at  that  time  in  distant  parts, 
that  Paul  came  and  found  so  few  apostles 
in  Jerusalem. 

Peter  was  there,  and  so  was  "James 
the  Lord's  brother."  It  is  not  unlikely 
that  the  latter  was  as  yet  quite  young  in 
the  office.  Paul  himself  had  not  entered 
it.  He  was  a  disciple,  and  had  preached 
in  Damascus,  but  was  not  yet  accredited 
as  he  was  after  his  labors  in  Antioch, 
and  his  ordination  there.  Whether  any 
other  James  was  in  the  city  or  not,  when 
Paul,  years  afterward,  wrote  of  this  visit, 


"THE  LORD'S  BROTHER."  183 

he  applied  the  descriptive  phrase  to  the 
one  he  saw,  so  as  to  distinguish  him 
from  both  the  others  of  the  name,  who 
were  apostles  from  the  beginning.     If 
Josephus  confounded  this  James  with 
James  the  Less,  and  spoke  of  the  Loid's 
brother  when  he  meant  James  the  Less, 
he  made  a  very  natural  mistake,  such  as 
others  made,   and   have    been    making 
through  all  these  centuries.     But  Paul 
made  no  mistake  of  this  kind.    He  spoke 
of  James  the  Less  in  the  same  epistle, 
but   applied   no   descriptive   epithet  to 
him.     He  was  the  James  whom  Peter 
feared,  and  because  of  whom  he  "dis- 
sembled."    Before  that  time   the  elder 
James  had  been  killed  with  the  sword, 
and   previous   to   this   execution  James 
the  Less  had  always  been  so  designated; 
but  now  he  is  simply  James.     "Go  tell 
James;"    "came    from    James;"    "after 
they   all   held   their   peace,   James   an- 


1 84  MAJ^V  OF  NAZARETH. 

swered.'*  These  expressions  show  how 
this  James  now  stood.  He  needed  no 
other  description;  bnt  another  James, 
younger  than  he,  just  admitted  to  the 
office,  must  be  distinguished.  He  is 
*' James  the  Lord's  brother."  At  what- 
ever time  this  third  James  became  an 
apostle,  whether  before  or  after  the  death 
of  the  first  James,  some  descriptive  title 
was  necessary,  in  order  to  avoid  con- 
fusion ;  and  no  other  was  so  natural  or 
expressive  as  the  one  Paul  used.  It  was 
the  one  he  had  always  borne,  was  well 
understood,  and  distinguished  him  from 
both  the  others. 

That  this  third  James  became  an 
apostle,  seems  the  necessary  conclusion 
from  all  that  has  gone  before.  It  has 
been  clearly  shown  that  the  son  of  Al- 
pheus  was  not  a  cousin  to  Jesus;  never 
lived  with  Mary  his  mother,  and  was 
one  of  *'the  twelve"  when  James  and 


''THE  LORD'S  BROTHER^  185 

Joses  and  Simon  and  Judas  were  all  at 
home  in  Nazareth,  known  as  ''his  breth- 
ren."     The   other    Mary   was    not   the 
sister  of  his  mother;  but  her  sons  were 
disciples,  and  two  of  them  apostles,  be- 
fore   "his   brethren"   beheved   on  him. 
These  facts,  so  clearly  proven,  leave  us 
no     alternative.       "James    the     Lord's 
brother"  must  have  been  the  James  who 
was  known  in  Nazareth  long  after  the 
twelve  were  chosen  and  ordained,  and 
who  did  not  becom.e  a  disciple  till  after 
the    resurrection.      This    phrase,    "the 
brethren  of  the  Lord,"  was  kept  up  too 
persistently  not  to  have  had  a  basis  and 
reason  in  actual  fact. 

No  trustworthy  account  of  the  apos- 
tolic labors  of  this  third  James  has  come 
down  to  us.  The  same  is  true  with  re- 
o-ard  to  the  labors  of  several  of  the  others 
who  were  apostles  from  the  beginnmg. 
We    can    not    tell    where    they    lived, 


1 86  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

whither  they  went,  or  where  they  died. 
Vague  traditions  are  all  we  have,  but 
our  ignorance  does  not  discredit  their 
apostleship.  Neither  should  it  that  of 
the  third  James.  Early  Church  history 
tells  what  the  fathers  of  the  early  cen- 
turies thought  and  believed  with  regard 
to  several  of  whom  we  know  so  little, 
and  also  of  this  "James  the  Lord's 
brother;^*  but  it  is  next  to  impossible  to 
distinguish  between  what  was  ascribed 
to  James  the  Less,  and  to  this  third 
James;  for  at  that  early  day  the  habit  of 
speaking  of  James  the  Less  as  James 
the  Just  and  '^  James  the  Lord's  brother," 
was  becoming  common. 

There  is  nothing  in  the  slightest  de- 
gree unreasonable  in  the  claim  that  one 
of  "his  brethren,"  who  lived  in  the 
home  of  his  mother,  and  was  reared 
under  her  care,  and  yet  so  long  with- 
stood the  evidences  of  his  Messiahship, 


''THE  LORD'S  BROTHER^  1 87 

and  only  consented  to  become  a  disciple 
after  the  most  indubitable  proofs  of  his 
resurrection  from  the  dead,  should  at  last 
become  an  apostle  of  Christ.  His  eligi- 
bility and  qualifications  were  complete. 
He  was  an  ^'eye-witness"  of  the  death 
and  resurrection,  in  that  he  saw  him 
after  he  was  alive  from  the  dead;  and 
there  is  no  doubt  that  he  saw  him  ascend 
from  Mount  Olivet,  and  heard  the  voice 
of  the  angel,  and  returned  with  joy  to 
the  city,  and  shared  the  enduement  of 
power  in  the  upper  room,  receiving  the 
baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost.  What,  then,  was  lacking  to 
make  him  an  apostle  indeed?  In 
natural  ability  and  moral  fitness  he  was 
equal  to  the  demand.  He  was  probably 
the  peer  of  any  of  the  twelve.  Being 
the  oldest  of  the  family,  next  to  ''  the 
first-born  son"  of  Mary,  he  was  now 
about  the  age  that  Jesus  was  when  he 


1 88  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

began  his  ministry.  Why  should  he  not 
become  an  apostle?  He  was,  indeed, 
"James  the  Lord's  brother." 

The  question  has  arisen  as  to  the 
number  of  the  apostles.  It  is  held  that 
there  could  be  only  twelve.  The  im- 
pression prevailed  among  the  apostles 
themselves  at  the  start,  that  twelve  was 
the  fixed  number.  When  Judas  fell, 
they  thought  they  must  fill  his  place 
from  amongst  those  who  were  eyewit- 
nesses, and  could  give  testimony  to  the 
resurrection.  Whether  this  were  neces- 
sary or  not,  they  so  regarded  it.  But 
others  became  apostles  afterwards. 
Whether  more  than  twelve  were  in  the 
office  at  one  time,  does  not  appear.  Pos- 
sibly not.  Paul  and  Barnabas  became 
apostles  in  the  fullest  sense.  It  may  be 
that  some  died  before  this  occurred. 
That  is  not  important.  It  may  be  that 
the    first    James    was    killed    with    the 


''THE  LORD'S  BROTHERr  189 

sword  before  tlie  third  James  came  into 
the  apostleship.  This  is  not  impossible. 
We  only  know  that  Paul  saw  him,  and 
declared  him  an  apostle,  and  called  him 
"James  the  Lord's  brother.'* 

Others  did  much  apostolic  work,  and 
joined  with  Paul  in  some  of  his  apostolic 
epistles.     Timothy,  Sylvanus,  and  Sos- 
thenes  did  this.     Apollos  and  Silas  were 
active  and  successful  ministers,  and  so 
were  Luke  and  Mark;  but  whether  they 
were  ever  inducted  into  the  office  as 
apostles   is   not  known.      Apollos  was 
closely  identified  with  the  office  in  Paul's 
writings,  and  perhaps   not  less  in  the 
work  he  did.     He  appears  nearly  on  a 
level   with    the   great    apostle    himself 
when  Paul  says:  "For  while  one  saith,  I 
am    of    Paul;    and    another,    I    am    of 
Apollos,  are  ye  not  carnal?     Who  then 
is  Paul,  and  who  is  Apollos,  but  minis- 
ters by  whom  ye  believed?'»     "I  have 


I90  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

planted,  and  ApoUos  watered;  but  God 
gave  the  increase.'*  Again:  "All  things 
are  yours ;  whether  Paul,  or  Apollos,  or 
Cephas,  or  the  world. '^  Surely,  if 
Apollos  was  not  an  apostle,  he  was  little 
inferior  in  position  or  power. 

Perhaps  he  lacked  one  thing.  It 
seems  to  have  been  necessary  to  the 
office  that  the  incumbent  should  have 
seen  the  Lord  after  his  resurrection. 
Paul  was  not  an  exception  to  this  re- 
quirement, for  he  says:  "And  last  of  all 
he  was  seen  of  me  also,  as  of  one  born 
out  of  due  time.'*  (i  Corinthians  xv,  8.) 
If  this  was  indispensable,  as  it  was  evi- 
dently regarded,  it  did  not  exclude 
"James  the  Lord's  brother,"  who  re- 
turned from  Olivet  with  the  disciples 
after  the  ascension,  and  with  his  mother 
entered  the  upper  room.  He  was  of 
the  one  hundred  and  twenty.  If  it  was 
necessary    to    the    apostolate    that   one 


''THE  LORD'S  BROTHER:'  191 

should  be  an  ^'eyewitness  to  the  resur- 
rection," or  should  have  "seen  the  Lord," 
the  discontinuance  of  the  office  after  the 
"eyewitnesses"    were    dead,    is    readily 
understood.     The  pretentious  claim  to 
successorship  in  this  office,  set  up  by  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  by  some 
Protestant    Churches,    proves    an    un- 
founded  assumption.      The    only    suc- 
cessorship that  is  either  possible  or  val- 
uable is  in  the  spiritual  functions  of  the 
gospel  ministry.     Whoever  is  called  of 
God  to  the  ministry  of  the  Word,  and 
is  graciously  endowed  for  the  work  by 
the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  the  true 
successor  of  the  apostles.     In  this  sense 
Apollos    and   Timothy    and    Silas,  and 
many  others,  were  apostles  indeed;  min- 
isters with  the  apostolic  spirit,  doing  the 
chiefest  of  all  apostolic  work,  winning 
souls  to  Christ,  and  edifying  the  Church. 
This  apostolic  ministry  abides.     It  is. 


192  MARY  OF  NAZARETH. 

tHerefore,  proper  to  hold  that  any  Church 
which  is  steadfast  in  the  apostles'  doc- 
trine, and  in  the  fellowship  of  the  saints, 
holding  fast  the  form  of  sound  words, 
and  maintaining  the  spirit  of  the  gospel 
of  peace,  is  a  genuine  Church  of  Christ, 
and  entitled  to  recognition  as  such  by 
all  the  brotherhood  of  believers  who 
love  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  love  one 
another  with  pure  hearts  fervently 


dr&B  €ntJ. 


Date  Due 

j 

'1    ^-  ■  ■•-, 

D?' 

^mm^M- 

r'*-«u..«^ 

1^ 

iiliiiiiiir^ 

'f^jm^ 

JSiit' 

^^,^-,.ifltf^ 

r 

JMii 

mi 

■ 

^ 
1 

.,,  _j 

